US military units to stay for South China Sea patrols

[webfact]

US military units to stay for South China Sea patrols



WASHINGTON: -- United States Defence Secretary Ash Carter revealed on Thursday that at least 200 American servicemen will stay behind after the US-Philippines military exercises Balikatan for joint air and maritime patrols in the South China Sea, according to philstar.com.

Carter said at a press conference that the US and the Philippine militaries started joint maritime patrols in the South China Sea —a move decided at a ministerial meeting with Gazmin, US State Secretary John Kerry and former Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario in Washington in January. Philippine counterpart Voltaire Gazmine was also present.

To compliment the maritime patrols, a contingent of US aircraft including their crews and pilots will remain at Clark Air Base in Pampanga for air missions, Carter said. He also admitted that this will be the first among many contingents that will regularly maintain presence in the country.

This initial unit will include five A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft, three HH-60G Pave Hawk search and rescue helicopters and one MC-130H Combat Talon or special operations plane.

Another group of American personnel will also remain in the Philippines to boost command-and-control capabilities.

The planned joint activities of the longtime allies came following a Supreme Court decision allowing the implementation of the Enhanced Cooperation Defence Agreement (ECDA) providing for the rotational presence of American troops in selected Philippine military bases.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/159623


-- Thai PBS 2016-04-15

[55Jay]

The protesters will be out again.

Who do you hate more. The Chinese or the US. A conundrum for the Nationalists.

Sure the commander has the lads on a short tether and stiff penalty for being stupid. At any rate, the working girls and businesses around Angeles ought to be happy about this.

Edited April 15, 2016 by 55Jay

[cameraman888]

The Chinese are bullies to anyone close to their fake islands they built illegally. Chinese continually go into other countries water to fish along with their support boats and navy ships. I have to vote for USA rather than China any day.

[sgtsabai]

For those that are used to my posts this may seem unusual, but you don't know me. With the Steins Group in the area and Sec. Def. Carter due to arrive on board (http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/14/stennis-south-china-sea-tensions-scarborough-shoal/82989002/) I would suggest a fly bye of F-W's low level, then standing off while land based A-W's do a real low level. All armed of course. If we have no A-W's in the theater, I don't think we do, a couple of destroyer/cruiser weapons active should do. None of the pussy footing around with freedom of navigation. The US needs to quit playing around, diplomacy is one thing, the Chinese understand it better than the US. They lie and put on a pretty face, call 'em out. As long as the US continues to allow it, the Chinese will bully the countries unable to fight back. If not stopped, they will take the China Seas and the stepping stone to the nearby countries. Diplomacy?, the US needs to say out right, we back the other countries, completely dispute your phony "nine dash line" and will stop all island building. OK, overboard but what else?

[sgtsabai]

My apologies, apparently my spell checker didn't like some of what I posted and there is a glitch on my computer that stops my from editing. It should have read Stennis, F-18's and A-10's

[frankv42]

The Phils kicked us out when we became inconvenient, now we should risk American lives and spend millions to protect them? Better to help the countries involved protect themselves, and to build a coalition with other countries (incl Europe). We always take on these ourselves, and end up the one who spends the most lives and money for some objective most Americans could care less about. If other major countries won't join, no reason for us to go it alone.

[NowImEasy]

The protesters will be out again.

Who do you hate more. The Chinese or the US. A conundrum for the Nationalists.

Ronald Reagan said, "If you want peace, you can have it right now. Just surrender."

This famous speech is on You Tube. Search for "Why We fight."

[IAMHERE]

The USA fought and died to get Spain out of the Philippines, fought and died to get Japan out of the Philippines, and now is expected to once more fight and die for the Philippines. What I remember most is the Philippines kicking the USA out. My opinion now is let the Philippines fend for themselves.

[Scott]

There has always been a strong relationship between the US and the Philippines.

What is at risk is not the Philippines, but the South China Sea and free passage of ships and goods through it. That is a risk to the US and much of the rest of the world.

[yogavnture]

as an american who travels in philipines. i dont think the philipinos treat nature particularly well although probably better than the chinese do.............i dont think the philipinos respect americans much. why should we die for them? they kicked us out!

[bassman]

Time for America to make the switch to the pacific and reduce their role in Europe to no more than the European's own contribution, say the equivalent to Germany's military. Europe is richer than America, has more people than America and is well capable of protecting itself from the Russians.

The check on China's hegemony on the other hand is almost entirely in the hands of the USA as other than the S.Korean's, Japanese and Taiwanese the remaining countries militaries are basket cases. The pacific is humongous and requires a strong military presence. China's military spending is massive, though the USA's military budget is still larger one must remember that the cost of putting a person in uniform is many times the cost in the USA than in China. Additionally a significant amount of the US defense budget is spent on legacy items such as retired members, medical costs and the VA, doubt the Chinese have those costs. US budget in 2015 was 596 billion while in China the budget was 215 billion, considering legacy costs these budgets might not be that far apart. Plus when you add in the cost of maintaining a nuclear deterrent against Russia's massive arsenal there's not much difference in actual conventional force expenditures.

[Publicus]

The Phils kicked us out when we became inconvenient, now we should risk American lives and spend millions to protect them? Better to help the countries involved protect themselves, and to build a coalition with other countries (incl Europe). We always take on these ourselves, and end up the one who spends the most lives and money for some objective most Americans could care less about. If other major countries won't join, no reason for us to go it alone.

Understandable and right.

Which is why the CCP Dictators in Beijing went ballistic last week when the G-7 at their meeting in Hiroshima Japan issued its first statement on the SCS that called for a cessation of artificial island construction and for everyone involved to stop militarising the islands they claim.

This means you CCP.

From Xinhua, the official CCP "news" agency....

China on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction after foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) issued a statement that touched upon disputes in the East and South China Seas.

"We urge the G7 member states to honor their commitment of not taking sides on issues involving territorial disputes," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said in response to the statement issued by the foreign ministers from Britain, Canada,France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States on Monday after they convened in the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

He reiterated that China will neither accept nor participate in any arbitration illegally forced upon it. "We urge the G7 member states to fully respect the efforts made by countries in the region, stop making irresponsible remarks and all irresponsible actions, and truly play a constructive role for regional peace and stability," said the spokesman.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-04/12/c_135269149.htm

Neither the US nor do the G-7 take any stance on the sovereignty claims of disputants concerning islands in the South China Sea or in the East Sea involving Japan. The US, the G-7 and Asean oppose militarising existing islands and oppose creating artificial islands that come into immediate dispute and then to militarise them. CCP Dictators in Beijing are doing both.

This is CCP irredentism and it is CCP revanchism. It is an attitude of settling scores for perceived past grievances and this is an attitude of no good or gain for anyone. It demonstrates that China simply has too much history and that it is demonstrating a gross immaturity and an inability to handle its history or to surpass it in the interests of peace and a mutual prosperity.

[Publicus]

as an american who travels in philipines. i dont think the philipinos treat nature particularly well although probably better than the chinese do.............i dont think the philipinos respect americans much. why should we die for them? they kicked us out!

Get over it.

The US national interest and global security against the CCP Dictators in Beijing are rational causes, purposes, goals.

This is clear, present, real.

Lashing out solves nothing and it would in fact create serious new problems and challenges. Forgive, forget, construct and move forward not backward.

Visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, left, arrives for the closing ceremony of the 11-day joint U.S.-Philippines military exercise dubbed "Balikatan 2016" April 15, 2016 at Camp Aguinaldo in suburban Quezon city, Philippines. Sec. Carter is escorted by Gen. Glonoso Miranda, Chief of Staff of the Philippines Armed Forces. The joint exercise involved 5,600 combined forces.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Publicus

[Somtamnication]

And so it begins........

[Publicus]

SecDef Ashton Carter has expanded the US Pivot to the Pacific to include six aircraft carrier strike groups being forward deployed to the region. Previously the US had one with the 7th Fleet on a rotational basis in Japan.

Carriers will also be based in Guam, South Korea, Singapore and will come under the combined operations of the 7th Fleet and the 3rd Fleet. The two fleets have more ships and firepower than the entire PLA Navy.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrives on board the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the South China Sea April 16th to address 2000 Naval and Marine forces in the main hangar deck. Carter, who is on a trip to India and the Philippines cancelled his scheduled visit to Beijing due to increasing disputes and tensions in the Sea and in the region.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Publicus

[55Jay]

SecDef Ashton Carter has expanded the US Pivot to the Pacific to include six aircraft carrier strike groups being forward deployed to the region. Previously the US had one with the 7th Fleet on a rotational basis in Japan.

Carriers will also be based in Guam, South Korea, Singapore and will come under the combined operations of the 7th Fleet and the 3rd Fleet. The two fleets have more ships and firepower than the entire PLA Navy.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrives on board the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the South China Sea April 16th to address 2000 Naval and Marine forces in the main hangar deck. Carter, who is on a trip to India and the Philippines cancelled his scheduled visit to Beijing due to increasing disputes and tensions in the Sea and in the region.

Do you have the link to comments re: 6 carrier strike groups being forward deployed? I've gone through several articles on his visit to Stennis, but do not see ref to that. Thanks.

[sgtsabai]

Like I said, my earlier statement was over the top but the US has got to play hardball with the Chinese. They lie, cover up, and lie again. Good for the G-7 for calling them out. Better at it evidently than the US. The US should send (LCS would break down...lol) destroyers out with the fishing fleets and let the Chinese attempt to ram them. High stakes poker yes, but it is the only thing China will respect. They won't respect the "freedom of passage" travels. They might start to get a bit nervous if there was locked and loaded passage in between the mainland and close by the fake islands daily or weekly without notice, forget that "freedom of navigation or passage" whatever it is. There are 2 different "freedom" and the one the US uses is passive. As publicas has noted, the US Navy has in 2 fleets more air and firepower than the entire Chinese Navy/AF. The time to challenge is now, not 20 yrs down the road when China is much more advanced and we are relying on the can't fly, can't fight, can't bomb, can't provide close air support, not stealthy boondoggle F-35.

[55Jay]

SecDef Ashton Carter has expanded the US Pivot to the Pacific to include six aircraft carrier strike groups being forward deployed to the region. Previously the US had one with the 7th Fleet on a rotational basis in Japan.

Carriers will also be based in Guam, South Korea, Singapore and will come under the combined operations of the 7th Fleet and the 3rd Fleet. The two fleets have more ships and firepower than the entire PLA Navy.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrives on board the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the South China Sea April 16th to address 2000 Naval and Marine forces in the main hangar deck. Carter, who is on a trip to India and the Philippines cancelled his scheduled visit to Beijing due to increasing disputes and tensions in the Sea and in the region.

Do you have the link to comments re: 6 carrier strike groups being forward deployed? I've gone through several articles on his visit to Stennis, but do not see ref to that. Thanks.

Were the comments in your post yours, or copy/paste? What was the source?

[sgtsabai]

The latter part part you just posted is copy and paste. I'm not sure about 6 carrier part mentioned. I think perhaps mistyped. This is what I find: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146

[55Jay]

The latter part part you just posted is copy and paste. I'm not sure about 6 carrier part mentioned. I think perhaps mistyped. This is what I find: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146

I went through the 290 page CSIS report on the asia re-balance. WRT carriers, recommends 1 additional forward deployed to the region by 2019, in addition to the one in Yokosuka. That sounds realistic and doable.

[Publicus]

SecDef Ashton Carter has expanded the US Pivot to the Pacific to include six aircraft carrier strike groups being forward deployed to the region. Previously the US had one with the 7th Fleet on a rotational basis in Japan.

Carriers will also be based in Guam, South Korea, Singapore and will come under the combined operations of the 7th Fleet and the 3rd Fleet. The two fleets have more ships and firepower than the entire PLA Navy.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrives on board the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the South China Sea April 16th to address 2000 Naval and Marine forces in the main hangar deck. Carter, who is on a trip to India and the Philippines cancelled his scheduled visit to Beijing due to increasing disputes and tensions in the Sea and in the region.

Do you have the link to comments re: 6 carrier strike groups being forward deployed? I've gone through several articles on his visit to Stennis, but do not see ref to that. Thanks.

The six carriers each with its strike force to the Pacific were accomplished at the end of 2013, so it's not a new announcement, which is why it isn't news on this eastern trip by SecDef Ashton Carter to India, Phils, South Korea, Japan. Carter two weeks ago cancelled his scheduled stop in Beijing.

Three Carrier Strike Forces (CSF) are currently forward deployed:

USS Ronald Reagan CVN 76 in Japan, from the 3rd Fleet (East of the International Date Line Pacific) to the 7th Fleet (West of the IDL Pacific);

USS George Washington CVN 73 also in Japan (currently being overhauled in Norfolk VA)

USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 from the 5th Fleet (Bahrain) to the 7th Fleet and Guam when new facilities are completed next year. The Stennis CSF is currently operating in the SCS and was visited yesterday by SecDef Carter and Phils Defense Minister Voltaire Gazmin.

Three carriers currently based on the US west coast will be relocated to a forward deployment at

Guam: USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN 71, from 5th Fleet (Bahrain) to 3rd Fleet in Bremerton WA to 7th Fleet.

South Korea: USS Harry S. Truman CVN 75 from 2nd Fleet (Atlantic) to 7th Fleet.

USS Carl Vinson CVN 70 from 3rd Fleet San Diego to 7th Fleet and it will divide basing time between Singapore and Brunei (neither wants to be a permanent USN base but if we all say "temporarily" it's ok).

When sea and shock trials of the new USS GHW Bush CVN 77 are completed around the end of the year, it will relieve the Roosevelt which will go to Norfolk VA for overhaul. USS John F. Kennedy CVN 79 is planned for commissioning in 2020 and will almost certainly be deployed to the Pacific.

Basing in Perth Australia was ruled out because it is too far out of major shipping lanes and too much work would be involved to accommodate a CSF as its base. Washington and Canberra have agreed to B-2 Stealth bombers and 1500 US Marines at existing bases in the northwest near Darwin.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN 69 Carrier Strike Group Ten consists of Air Wing

Three which has eight squadrons of fighter aircraft, the Aegis guided missile

Destroyer Squadron 26, guided missile cruiser USS Normandy CG 60, and an

always undisclosed number of attack submarines (2 or 3).

USN is in a huge ship building program that can't come online operationally fast enough or soon enough. So efficiency also demands forward deployments.

A given CSF of the US 3rd Fleet in San Diego uses up to 25% of its deployment time in transit to and from its deployment to for instance the SCS. Conversely, the Reagan which is based in Japan uses 100% of its deployment time in the Western Pacific-East Asia in deployment. The point is thus obvious to forward deploy.

Sixty percent of USN nuclear and attack submarines are already operating with the 7th Fleet in the Western Pacific. Eight of the unofficial count of 14 US Ohio-class Boomer submarines nuclear armed with 24 multiple warhead missiles each are presently operating in the Western Pacific. Sixty percent of US military reconnaissance forward operations are now occurring in the Western Pacific due to China in the SCS and the East Sea (Japan), North Korea and its nuclear brains, Russia.

Guam is perfectly located halfway between Tokyo and Manila to be the US central base. US Pacific Air Forces are loading the island with warplanes, missiles defensive and offensive, and carrier facilities are being rush constructed by the US together with Japan.

Game on.

http://www.public.navy.mil/SURFOR/Pages/PacificTheaterShips.aspx#.VxJSvNIdDjs

http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/010221

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-backs-asia-pacific-policy-aircraft-carriers

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/620232.html

[Publicus]

SecDef Ashton Carter has expanded the US Pivot to the Pacific to include six aircraft carrier strike groups being forward deployed to the region. Previously the US had one with the 7th Fleet on a rotational basis in Japan.

Carriers will also be based in Guam, South Korea, Singapore and will come under the combined operations of the 7th Fleet and the 3rd Fleet. The two fleets have more ships and firepower than the entire PLA Navy.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrives on board the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the South China Sea April 16th to address 2000 Naval and Marine forces in the main hangar deck. Carter, who is on a trip to India and the Philippines cancelled his scheduled visit to Beijing due to increasing disputes and tensions in the Sea and in the region.

Do you have the link to comments re: 6 carrier strike groups being forward deployed? I've gone through several articles on his visit to Stennis, but do not see ref to that. Thanks.

Were the comments in your post yours, or copy/paste? What was the source?

Stuff I've read or caught on C-SPAN or spoken with people about or discussed online such as here but hardly here only. Ways and means like that.

My TV profile indicates I graduated university Army ROTC and served the required tour of active duty as a commissioned regular officer (of Infantry). It wuz a long time ago but I've done some keeping up with it all over time cause these are not things easily dismissed nor would I want to dismiss the usefulness of the experience or its value.

My reply respects the integrity of your question, its motives and purposes.

[Publicus]

Like I said, my earlier statement was over the top but the US has got to play hardball with the Chinese. They lie, cover up, and lie again. Good for the G-7 for calling them out. Better at it evidently than the US. The US should send (LCS would break down...lol) destroyers out with the fishing fleets and let the Chinese attempt to ram them. High stakes poker yes, but it is the only thing China will respect. They won't respect the "freedom of passage" travels. They might start to get a bit nervous if there was locked and loaded passage in between the mainland and close by the fake islands daily or weekly without notice, forget that "freedom of navigation or passage" whatever it is. There are 2 different "freedom" and the one the US uses is passive. As publicas has noted, the US Navy has in 2 fleets more air and firepower than the entire Chinese Navy/AF. The time to challenge is now, not 20 yrs down the road when China is much more advanced and we are relying on the can't fly, can't fight, can't bomb, can't provide close air support, not stealthy boondoggle F-35.

Good to see you making sense again sarge

You've got the right attitude it's just that no one in a balanced state of mind would put you in command. Sorry 'bout that but true.

Right that the Chinese dictators and authoritarians only understand a good swift kick to the chops (ouch). Same as the dictators in Moscow throughout the cold war, certainly similar to 'em. They probe and go ahead so if no one steps in front of 'em they just keep creeping up on us.

Stick a bayonet under their nose and they quit. But only for a time. When we set down the rifle with bayonet on it to have lunch of something they're skulking forward again. Russians are nutty but the Chinese are out of it. They actually still believe that when they say something that it is the first and last final word period, there's just no possibility otherwise. They still think this way. Win-lose. Zero-sum.

Chinese know they can't fight and they've always known it. (Problem is they're neither fighters nor are they lovers.) Chinese have been overrun for more than a couple of thousand years without much resistance or any successful resistance. They're lousy at war or combat. Sun Tzu was on the mark but no Chinese commander or emperor read him or understood him as the Mongols and the Manchu walked right in for several dynasties of rule. (Mandarin language comes from Mongolia, not China.)

Chinese have to rely on cunning, duplicity, winning without firing a shot as we well know the saying. Yet what may have been inscrutable 100 years ago has become apparent and universal knowledge in the Age of IT and even before then. In the globalised world of instant communication and interaction, people have learned what they may not have known previously.

So they're not fooling anyone any more. Certainly not since the monster Mao, and not since the contortionist Deng who created the present pretzel economy and the CCP's ongoing foreign adventures.

SecDef Ashton Carter is a nuclear physicist who also got a master degree in medieval society and times, which is really and exactly where the CCP and their China heads still are today. He's directly worked for or formally advised 11 secretaries of defense. So it's good at long last that Ash Carter is the guy to see in Washington to find out about bayonets.

And aircraft carriers.

[55Jay]

SecDef Ashton Carter has expanded the US Pivot to the Pacific to include six aircraft carrier strike groups being forward deployed to the region. Previously the US had one with the 7th Fleet on a rotational basis in Japan.

Carriers will also be based in Guam, South Korea, Singapore and will come under the combined operations of the 7th Fleet and the 3rd Fleet. The two fleets have more ships and firepower than the entire PLA Navy.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrives on board the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the South China Sea April 16th to address 2000 Naval and Marine forces in the main hangar deck. Carter, who is on a trip to India and the Philippines cancelled his scheduled visit to Beijing due to increasing disputes and tensions in the Sea and in the region.

Do you have the link to comments re: 6 carrier strike groups being forward deployed? I've gone through several articles on his visit to Stennis, but do not see ref to that. Thanks.

The six carriers each with its strike force to the Pacific were accomplished at the end of 2013, so it's not a new announcement, which is why it isn't news on this eastern trip by SecDef Ashton Carter to India, Phils, South Korea, Japan. Carter two weeks ago cancelled his scheduled stop in Beijing.

Three Carrier Strike Forces (CSF) are currently forward deployed:

USS Ronald Reagan CVN 76 in Japan, from the 3rd Fleet (East of the International Date Line Pacific) to the 7th Fleet (West of the IDL Pacific);

USS George Washington CVN 73 also in Japan (currently being overhauled in Norfolk VA)

USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 from the 5th Fleet (Bahrain) to the 7th Fleet and Guam when new facilities are completed next year. The Stennis CSF is currently operating in the SCS and was visited yesterday by SecDef Carter and Phils Defense Minister Voltaire Gazmin.

Three carriers currently based on the US west coast will be relocated to a forward deployment at

Guam: USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN 71, from 5th Fleet (Bahrain) to 3rd Fleet in Bremerton WA to 7th Fleet.

South Korea: USS Harry S. Truman CVN 75 from 2nd Fleet (Atlantic) to 7th Fleet.

USS Carl Vinson CVN 70 from 3rd Fleet San Diego to 7th Fleet and it will divide basing time between Singapore and Brunei (neither wants to be a permanent USN base but if we all say "temporarily" it's ok).

When sea and shock trials of the new USS GHW Bush CVN 77 are completed around the end of the year, it will relieve the Roosevelt which will go to Norfolk VA for overhaul. USS John F. Kennedy CVN 79 is planned for commissioning in 2020 and will almost certainly be deployed to the Pacific.

Basing in Perth Australia was ruled out because it is too far out of major shipping lanes and too much work would be involved to accommodate a CSF as its base. Washington and Canberra have agreed to B-2 Stealth bombers and 1500 US Marines at existing bases in the northwest near Darwin.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN 69 Carrier Strike Group Ten consists of Air Wing

Three which has eight squadrons of fighter aircraft, the Aegis guided missile

Destroyer Squadron 26, guided missile cruiser USS Normandy CG 60, and an

always undisclosed number of attack submarines (2 or 3).

USN is in a huge ship building program that can't come online operationally fast enough or soon enough. So efficiency also demands forward deployments.

A given CSF of the US 3rd Fleet in San Diego uses up to 25% of its deployment time in transit to and from its deployment to for instance the SCS. Conversely, the Reagan which is based in Japan uses 100% of its deployment time in the Western Pacific-East Asia in deployment. The point is thus obvious to forward deploy.

Sixty percent of USN nuclear and attack submarines are already operating with the 7th Fleet in the Western Pacific. Eight of the unofficial count of 14 US Ohio-class Boomer submarines nuclear armed with 24 multiple warhead missiles each are presently operating in the Western Pacific. Sixty percent of US military reconnaissance forward operations are now occurring in the Western Pacific due to China in the SCS and the East Sea (Japan), North Korea and its nuclear brains, Russia.

Guam is perfectly located halfway between Tokyo and Manila to be the US central base. US Pacific Air Forces are loading the island with warplanes, missiles defensive and offensive, and carrier facilities are being rush constructed by the US together with Japan.

Game on.

http://www.public.navy.mil/SURFOR/Pages/PacificTheaterShips.aspx#.VxJSvNIdDjs

http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/010221

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-backs-asia-pacific-policy-aircraft-carriers

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/620232.html

Forward deployed means home ported OCONUS. I was on the Yokosuka carrier. We were "forward deployed".

Ships home ported in CONUS go on deployments, but are not "forward deployed".

Interesting comments about "relocated to forward deployment at" Guam, Singapore, Brunei.

Edit: I've just seen your other reply on sources. I have doubts about the last sentence^, but it may be the same terminology issue. Singapore/Brunei, no. Guam was a political football even when I was there. My last reading was facilities could be upgraded for longer duration of a carrier port visit, but not a "home port". There are proponents. Interesting if it has progressed without much notice.

Edited April 16, 2016 by 55Jay

[arjunadawn]

For those that are used to my posts this may seem unusual, but you don't know me. With the Steins Group in the area and Sec. Def. Carter due to arrive on board (http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/14/stennis-south-china-sea-tensions-scarborough-shoal/82989002/) I would suggest a fly bye of F-W's low level, then standing off while land based A-W's do a real low level. All armed of course. If we have no A-W's in the theater, I don't think we do, a couple of destroyer/cruiser weapons active should do. None of the pussy footing around with freedom of navigation. The US needs to quit playing around, diplomacy is one thing, the Chinese understand it better than the US. They lie and put on a pretty face, call 'em out. As long as the US continues to allow it, the Chinese will bully the countries unable to fight back. If not stopped, they will take the China Seas and the stepping stone to the nearby countries. Diplomacy?, the US needs to say out right, we back the other countries, completely dispute your phony "nine dash line" and will stop all island building. OK, overboard but what else?

Yep, you are correct. However, one should not bluff such a thing (as you know). For the US to do this, it would be perceived as bluffing (as Russia, China, Iran, and N Korea know). Behind the actions you describe above must be the resolve to stand by national policy. Regardless of what our nation's policies are, under Obama's stewardship, it is apparent that some actors do not believe we will stand by our convictions... they would think our posturing is a bluff. (Years later, diplomatically, historians would clearly note that the US gave years of false diplomatic messages leading up to conflict). Thus, having sent out such clear messages for a long time deciding to actually behave as you suggest above (the correct way) may actually result in undesired outcomes- war.

No one expects Obama to stand up for America, certainly not with months to go in office. Therefore, standing up may be perceived as bluff (rightly or wrongly). I do worry about the remaining year.

[Publicus]

SecDef Ashton Carter has expanded the US Pivot to the Pacific to include six aircraft carrier strike groups being forward deployed to the region. Previously the US had one with the 7th Fleet on a rotational basis in Japan.

Carriers will also be based in Guam, South Korea, Singapore and will come under the combined operations of the 7th Fleet and the 3rd Fleet. The two fleets have more ships and firepower than the entire PLA Navy.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter arrives on board the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the South China Sea April 16th to address 2000 Naval and Marine forces in the main hangar deck. Carter, who is on a trip to India and the Philippines cancelled his scheduled visit to Beijing due to increasing disputes and tensions in the Sea and in the region.

Do you have the link to comments re: 6 carrier strike groups being forward deployed? I've gone through several articles on his visit to Stennis, but do not see ref to that. Thanks.

The six carriers each with its strike force to the Pacific were accomplished at the end of 2013, so it's not a new announcement, which is why it isn't news on this eastern trip by SecDef Ashton Carter to India, Phils, South Korea, Japan. Carter two weeks ago cancelled his scheduled stop in Beijing.

Three Carrier Strike Forces (CSF) are currently forward deployed:

USS Ronald Reagan CVN 76 in Japan, from the 3rd Fleet (East of the International Date Line Pacific) to the 7th Fleet (West of the IDL Pacific);

USS George Washington CVN 73 also in Japan (currently being overhauled in Norfolk VA)

USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 from the 5th Fleet (Bahrain) to the 7th Fleet and Guam when new facilities are completed next year. The Stennis CSF is currently operating in the SCS and was visited yesterday by SecDef Carter and Phils Defense Minister Voltaire Gazmin.

Three carriers currently based on the US west coast will be relocated to a forward deployment at

Guam: USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN 71, from 5th Fleet (Bahrain) to 3rd Fleet in Bremerton WA to 7th Fleet.

South Korea: USS Harry S. Truman CVN 75 from 2nd Fleet (Atlantic) to 7th Fleet.

USS Carl Vinson CVN 70 from 3rd Fleet San Diego to 7th Fleet and it will divide basing time between Singapore and Brunei (neither wants to be a permanent USN base but if we all say "temporarily" it's ok).

When sea and shock trials of the new USS GHW Bush CVN 77 are completed around the end of the year, it will relieve the Roosevelt which will go to Norfolk VA for overhaul. USS John F. Kennedy CVN 79 is planned for commissioning in 2020 and will almost certainly be deployed to the Pacific.

Basing in Perth Australia was ruled out because it is too far out of major shipping lanes and too much work would be involved to accommodate a CSF as its base. Washington and Canberra have agreed to B-2 Stealth bombers and 1500 US Marines at existing bases in the northwest near Darwin.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN 69 Carrier Strike Group Ten consists of Air Wing

Three which has eight squadrons of fighter aircraft, the Aegis guided missile

Destroyer Squadron 26, guided missile cruiser USS Normandy CG 60, and an

always undisclosed number of attack submarines (2 or 3).

USN is in a huge ship building program that can't come online operationally fast enough or soon enough. So efficiency also demands forward deployments.

A given CSF of the US 3rd Fleet in San Diego uses up to 25% of its deployment time in transit to and from its deployment to for instance the SCS. Conversely, the Reagan which is based in Japan uses 100% of its deployment time in the Western Pacific-East Asia in deployment. The point is thus obvious to forward deploy.

Sixty percent of USN nuclear and attack submarines are already operating with the 7th Fleet in the Western Pacific. Eight of the unofficial count of 14 US Ohio-class Boomer submarines nuclear armed with 24 multiple warhead missiles each are presently operating in the Western Pacific. Sixty percent of US military reconnaissance forward operations are now occurring in the Western Pacific due to China in the SCS and the East Sea (Japan), North Korea and its nuclear brains, Russia.

Guam is perfectly located halfway between Tokyo and Manila to be the US central base. US Pacific Air Forces are loading the island with warplanes, missiles defensive and offensive, and carrier facilities are being rush constructed by the US together with Japan.

Game on.

http://www.public.navy.mil/SURFOR/Pages/PacificTheaterShips.aspx#.VxJSvNIdDjs

http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/010221

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-backs-asia-pacific-policy-aircraft-carriers

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/620232.html

Forward deployed means home ported OCONUS. I was on the Yokosuka carrier. We were "forward deployed".

Ships home ported in CONUS go on deployments, but are not "forward deployed".

Interesting comments about "relocated to forward deployment at" Guam, Singapore, Brunei.

Edit: I've just seen your other reply on sources. I have doubts about the last sentence^, but it may be the same terminology issue. Singapore/Brunei, no. Guam was a political football even when I was there. My last reading was facilities could be upgraded for longer duration of a carrier port visit, but not a "home port". There are proponents. Interesting if it has progressed without much notice.

Forward deployed, yes.

My statements about the six carriers of the US Pacific fleets were:

Three Carrier Strike Forces (CSF) are currently forward deployed:

Three carriers currently based on the US west coast will be relocated to a forward deployment at

If that is clear to a former army grunt then dunno know why it would not be clear to a squid and, in particular, one who served on board a carrier that was forward deployed as in Japan.

You musta been a rear admiral or something cause the post makes sense on only one point, i.e., you served on a carrier and you were forward deployed (in Japan). Forward deployed. Not at Conus, which is where I spent my time marching around in Washington DC heat and humidity. (We ceremonial creampuffs didn't get no respect either.)

Speaking of Washington, that must have been your carrier in Yokosuka. If so, not a newest one but still a nasty war machine, ne c'est pas.

Singapore-Brunei to divvy up a USN carrier home port btw are a done deal, according to my reading of the relevant stuff. Been to Japan, S Korea but not to Guam cause I've been a civilian for many moons now, but I see local opposition there, yes...sort of like in the States long ago concerning the Sioux, Cherokee, Apache et al. (Sitting Bull did after all get his due comeuppance, especially when they attacked the iron horse while riding a real one bareback and with only a knife.)

[55Jay]

Duplicate post deleted by Publicus.

You don't sound very credible, your fluff links don't support what you've said, and now you are making assumptions and snarky comments. I'm interested, not looking for a bun fight. What is the relevant "stuff" you've read re: Guam, Singapore and Brunei as "home ports" for nuke carriers? Come on, help this dumb squid out.

Edited April 16, 2016 by 55Jay

[Khon Kaen Dave]

Mmmmm i dunno,its not an easy decision.China or the USA.You see i like Maine Lobster,but i truly adore Special fried rice with roast loin of pork in black bean source

So you can appreciate my dilemma.What could i least do without.Mmmm,its a problem.Give me a few minutes to think about it.

[Publicus]

Duplicate post deleted by Publicus.

You don't sound very credible, your fluff links don't support what you've said, and now you are making assumptions and snarky comments. I'm interested, not looking for a bun fight. What is the relevant "stuff" you've read re: Guam, Singapore and Brunei as "home ports" for nuke carriers? Come on, help this dumb squid out.

You're doing fine commander.

The kid here donates to charity but he himself isn't one.

So as a one time only offer -- special today for you only -- why don't we start with the official US war doctrine since 2010 of AirSea Battle which is designed to defeat the enemy in either a conventional war or in an ultimate one. Meaning of course the CCP China, Iran, Russia. Any one or all of 'em....

Air-Sea Battle is typically depicted as a doctrine for long-range exchange of missiles with China in the troubled Western Pacific or with Iran in and around the Persian Gulf: US air and sea forces try to push their way in while battling enemy “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) forces trying to keep us out. But that’s just part of it.

Air-Sea Battle in essence, is an effort to develop compatible technologies and tactics across all four services for a new kind of conflict: not the Army and Marine-led land war against low-tech guerrillas we have seen since 9/11, but an Air Force and Navy-led campaign against “anti-access/area denial” forces that could fry our networks, jam GPS, and hit our planes, ships, bases, and even satellites with long-range missiles. China is the worst case scenario here, but not the only one.

Unlike nukes, cyber operations – both offensive and defensive – have been at the heart of Air-Sea Battle from the beginning, since it envisions future warfare as a clash not just between missiles, ships, and aircraft but between the computer networks linking them. Why shoot down planes or satellites one at a time when frying the enemy’s network can neutralize all his hardware at once?

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/glimpse-inside-air-sea-battle-nukes-cyber-at-its-heart/

Hey chief, if you might think you're being fluffed again by not liking the linked source, just google AirSea Battle for a number of sources. What you might want to do in the end is to take it from an old former army grunt that the (WWII) dayze of Land-Air Battle are kaput.

The SCS is the platform for both Beijing and the Pentagon to put these new war fighting doctrines to their initial real life and real time test. No war so don't misunderstand. Some small series of incidents of one quick clash here, another quick bout there and so on in the SCS or related to it. Each side wants to prove his mettle by showing his stuff.

It's not a matter any more of who's got the biggest dick but, rather, who can shoot the farthest, fastest, most effectively, to include the mostest. CCP are counting on the mostest while the Pentagon means to go in hard and fast.

[55Jay]

Duplicate post deleted by Publicus.

You don't sound very credible, your fluff links don't support what you've said, and now you are making assumptions and snarky comments. I'm interested, not looking for a bun fight. What is the relevant "stuff" you've read re: Guam, Singapore and Brunei as "home ports" for nuke carriers? Come on, help this dumb squid out.

You're doing fine commander.

The kid here donates to charity but he himself isn't one.

So as a one time only offer -- special today for you only -- why don't we start with the official US war doctrine since 2010 of AirSea Battle which is designed to defeat the enemy in either a conventional war or in an ultimate one. Meaning of course the CCP China, Iran, Russia. Any one or all of 'em....

Air-Sea Battle is typically depicted as a doctrine for long-range exchange of missiles with China in the troubled Western Pacific or with Iran in and around the Persian Gulf: US air and sea forces try to push their way in while battling enemy “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) forces trying to keep us out. But that’s just part of it.

Air-Sea Battle in essence, is an effort to develop compatible technologies and tactics across all four services for a new kind of conflict: not the Army and Marine-led land war against low-tech guerrillas we have seen since 9/11, but an Air Force and Navy-led campaign against “anti-access/area denial” forces that could fry our networks, jam GPS, and hit our planes, ships, bases, and even satellites with long-range missiles. China is the worst case scenario here, but not the only one.

Unlike nukes, cyber operations – both offensive and defensive – have been at the heart of Air-Sea Battle from the beginning, since it envisions future warfare as a clash not just between missiles, ships, and aircraft but between the computer networks linking them. Why shoot down planes or satellites one at a time when frying the enemy’s network can neutralize all his hardware at once?

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/glimpse-inside-air-sea-battle-nukes-cyber-at-its-heart/

Hey chief, if you might think you're being fluffed again by not liking the linked source, just google AirSea Battle for a number of sources. What you might want to do in the end is to take it from an old former army grunt that the (WWII) dayze of Land-Air Battle are kaput.

The SCS is the platform for both Beijing and the Pentagon to put these new war fighting doctrines to their initial real life and real time test. No war so don't misunderstand. Some small series of incidents of one quick clash here, another quick bout there and so on in the SCS or related to it. Each side wants to prove his mettle by showing his stuff.

It's not a matter any more of who's got the biggest dick but, rather, who can shoot the farthest, fastest, most effectively, to include the mostest. CCP are counting on the mostest while the Pentagon means to go in hard and fast.

The above makes for interesting reading, but still has nothing to do with what I asked.

Using correct terminology incorrectly, causes confusion. Doubling down on it, and now avoiding it with irrelevant distraction, albeit interesting, is unfortunate, and detracts from your otherwise in-depth perspective.

My take away is there may be "done deal" agreements with Brunei, Singapore, and S. Korea, to act as forward logistics hubs and personnel movement APODs ISO of carriers, and other forces, on deployment in WestPac. Singapore (Sembawang) has been a small but vital hub since the early 90s (COMLOGWESTPAC). I am not aware of the others you mention being developed in a similar vein. However, I'll take your word on that because it makes sense in the broader re-balance/pivot/efficiency context Ash Carter is on about.

Guam is a bit different but still, I find nothing, and you've provided nothing, to support your assertion that home porting a carrier there is imminent. That would be a significant milestone in the long running issue. All of us on Guam had a good laugh when Congressman Hank Johnson (D-Ga,) famously opined that Guam could tilt, capsize and sink if the Navy stationed too many forces there (re: Marines~Okinawa~Guam).

At any rate, I enjoy reading some of your missives, especially your take on The Boyz, China, et al. Indeed, the political and military drum beat goes on out there in the big blue. This could get interesting.