Register here

Author Topic: China Expanded Air Defense Zone  (Read 116049 times)

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #720 on: January 08, 2017, 10:48:14 pm »
The Chinese have created a presence in the SCS based on their nascent coast guard so an American coast guard presence is a case of 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/11/02/china-lassen-destroyer-spratly-islands-south-china-sea-andrew-erickson-naval-war-college-militia-coast-guard-navy-confrontation-territorial-dispute/75070058/

It would seem so.  The PRC "little blue men" need to be managed by somebody.  They don't portend to be military vessels.  If they are not abiding by the laws of the sea then the USCG should intervene getting it all on camera.  It's important that the bullying tactics of the PRC be well documented.  Especially if US allies do not possess vessels of the size required to safely engage. 

Recall the USCG mission:  to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.

So this, in fact, is their job.  Not the Navy.

Start transfer of Whidby Island-class to USCG.  Paint them white.  Replace some USN HH-60's w/CMV-22's and move some HH-60's to the USCG.  Not perfect but a good start.

Recall that in times of war the Navy can legally "tactically acquire" ships from the USCG if necessary.

Someone want to forward this to Zukunft, Mattis, Dunford and Richardson?   ;)



Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9051
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #721 on: January 09, 2017, 05:03:24 am »
The Chinese have created a presence in the SCS based on their nascent coast guard so an American coast guard presence is a case of 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/11/02/china-lassen-destroyer-spratly-islands-south-china-sea-andrew-erickson-naval-war-college-militia-coast-guard-navy-confrontation-territorial-dispute/75070058/

It would seem so.  The PRC "little blue men" need to be managed by somebody.  They don't portend to be military vessels.  If they are not abiding by the laws of the sea then the USCG should intervene getting it all on camera.  It's important that the bullying tactics of the PRC be well documented.  Especially if US allies do not possess vessels of the size required to safely engage. 

Recall the USCG mission:  to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.

So this, in fact, is their job.  Not the Navy.

Start transfer of Whidby Island-class to USCG.  Paint them white.  Replace some USN HH-60's w/CMV-22's and move some HH-60's to the USCG.  Not perfect but a good start.

Recall that in times of war the Navy can legally "tactically acquire" ships from the USCG if necessary.

Someone want to forward this to Zukunft, Mattis, Dunford and Richardson?   ;)

x2.  Consider all the harassment of other ships these Chinese "fishing vessels" undertake.  The only way to get them to behave is to meet aggression with aggression as their entire goal here is intimidation. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #722 on: January 09, 2017, 07:43:54 am »
While, on the surface it may appear admirable that the USCG wants to become involved in the South China Sea dispute with the PRC, I somehow doubt it would have much authority (outside the US).   The PRC's Coast Guard is there, because the SCS is on the PRC's doorstep.  Proximity tends to led authority to coast guard forces, which are designed to, afterall, guard the nation's coasts (and surrounding seas).

Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #723 on: January 09, 2017, 01:19:18 pm »

Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".

I agree. It's why I like the idea of transferring the Whidby Island-class of amphibs to the USGS.  Those, combined with HH60's are perfect for HA/DR training.  There is no shortage of HA/DR incidents in this region.

At ~15000 tons they are big.
They are amphibs so the well deck with connectors is great for HA/DR training.
HH60's have proven capabilities and is a bird the USGS uses today.
Whidby Island-class comes with significant defensive systems.
Built to military survivability class II standard.
It can be done immediately. 
US Navy amphib plans are built around San Antonio-class ships (LX/R)
Two SA-Class LPD's are being built today.  There is industrial capacity to add another in the shipbuilding plan.



Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1605
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #724 on: January 09, 2017, 04:49:50 pm »
While, on the surface it may appear admirable that the USCG wants to become involved in the South China Sea dispute with the PRC, I somehow doubt it would have much authority (outside the US).   The PRC's Coast Guard is there, because the SCS is on the PRC's doorstep.  Proximity tends to led authority to coast guard forces, which are designed to, afterall, guard the nation's coasts (and surrounding seas).

Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".

The Chinese "fishermen" are a minor problem for the most part.   This is a problem, if the USCG Commander was smart, he wouldn't want to buy into.   It is a very long way from home and as you agree, his forces' legitimacy would be questionable.   The USCG can be involved, advising the local coast guard forces much more effectively and a lot less risky than if they had ships in action there.   

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #725 on: January 09, 2017, 06:33:43 pm »

Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".

I agree. It's why I like the idea of transferring the Whidby Island-class of amphibs to the USGS.  Those, combined with HH60's are perfect for HA/DR training.  There is no shortage of HA/DR incidents in this region.

At ~15000 tons they are big.
They are amphibs so the well deck with connectors is great for HA/DR training.
HH60's have proven capabilities and is a bird the USGS uses today.
Whidby Island-class comes with significant defensive systems.
Built to military survivability class II standard.
It can be done immediately. 
US Navy amphib plans are built around San Antonio-class ships (LX/R)
Two SA-Class LPD's are being built today.  There is industrial capacity to add another in the shipbuilding plan.

Actually Kaiser, let me qualify where I agree.  The USCG would be very beneficial in the Pacific theater.  Joint operations is a great way for the USCG to assist, but it quite obviously doesn't have to be the only way. 

No United States government civilian or military entity ever suffers from a lack of "real legitimacy".  Why would such a characterization be considered?  Further, they would not be operating "so far from home".  Especially if by "home" we mean those areas where the United States clearly has economic and security interest. 

The name, "US Coast Guard", only suggests that they are not typically a blue water force.  My goodness, it does not define where they perform their duties.  That would ignore historical precedence.  Of course we all know there are countries that, unfortunately, do abdicate their responsibilities.  They either don't choose to, or perhaps, they just don't have the ability to protect their national interests.  That doesn't mean the United States must operate in the same etiolated manner. 

The mission of the USGS is "to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security." 

That, my friend, includes the South China Sea.







Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1605
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #726 on: January 09, 2017, 07:22:55 pm »
Actually Kaiser, let me qualify where I agree.  The USCG would be very beneficial in the Pacific theater.  Joint operations is a great way for the USCG to assist, but it quite obviously doesn't have to be the only way. 

No United States government civilian or military entity ever suffers from a lack of "real legitimacy".  Why would such a characterization be considered?  Further, they would not be operating "so far from home".  Especially if by "home" we mean those areas where the United States clearly has economic and security interest. 

The name, "US Coast Guard", only suggests that they are not typically a blue water force.  My goodness, it does not define where they perform their duties.  That would ignore historical precedence.  Of course we all know there are countries that, unfortunately, do abdicate their responsibilities.  They either don't choose to, or perhaps, they just don't have the ability to protect their national interests.  That doesn't mean the United States must operate in the same etiolated manner. 

The mission of the USGS is "to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security." 

That, my friend, includes the South China Sea.

And you wonder why people view the US Government's intentions suspiciously?   The South China Sea is approximately half the way around the world from the US's coastlines.  The USCG has the word "Coast" in it's title.  Most people would assume that this mean the US's own coasts, not the coasts of the PRC on the South China Sea...

Before you go into a rant about how the US always operates honourably and so on, the historical record suggests otherwise.   The US military has acted dishonourably in the past, creating casus belli for the US Government when and if it is required. The US's interests are not always the same as the interests of the locals.

Locals have their own interests and their own reasons for acting the way they do.  The US has it's own interests and it's own reasons for acting the way it does.   The two do not always coincide and while I appreciate most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world, the rest of the world is not ignorant about the US.   Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq are all obvious examples of where the US has acted dishonourably for it's own intentions.

By all means, help the locals but don't usurp them.   Unless of course you're missing out on a war?

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #727 on: January 09, 2017, 07:41:28 pm »

And you wonder why people view the US Government's intentions suspiciously?   The South China Sea is approximately half the way around the world from the US's coastlines.  The USCG has the word "Coast" in it's title.  Most people would assume that this mean the US's own coasts, not the coasts of the PRC on the South China Sea...

Before you go into a rant about how the US always operates honourably and so on, the historical record suggests otherwise.   The US military has acted dishonourably in the past, creating casus belli for the US Government when and if it is required. The US's interests are not always the same as the interests of the locals.

Locals have their own interests and their own reasons for acting the way they do.  The US has it's own interests and it's own reasons for acting the way it does.   The two do not always coincide and while I appreciate most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world, the rest of the world is not ignorant about the US.   Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq are all obvious examples of where the US has acted dishonourably for it's own intentions.

By all means, help the locals but don't usurp them.   Unless of course you're missing out on a war?


   talk about a rant   ::)



Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1605
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #728 on: January 10, 2017, 02:43:36 am »

And you wonder why people view the US Government's intentions suspiciously?   The South China Sea is approximately half the way around the world from the US's coastlines.  The USCG has the word "Coast" in it's title.  Most people would assume that this mean the US's own coasts, not the coasts of the PRC on the South China Sea...

Before you go into a rant about how the US always operates honourably and so on, the historical record suggests otherwise.   The US military has acted dishonourably in the past, creating casus belli for the US Government when and if it is required. The US's interests are not always the same as the interests of the locals.

Locals have their own interests and their own reasons for acting the way they do.  The US has it's own interests and it's own reasons for acting the way it does.   The two do not always coincide and while I appreciate most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world, the rest of the world is not ignorant about the US.   Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq are all obvious examples of where the US has acted dishonourably for it's own intentions.

By all means, help the locals but don't usurp them.   Unless of course you're missing out on a war?

talk about a rant   ::)

If you perceived my post as a "rant", I feel sorry for you.  It's obvious you've never encountered calm, reasoned discussion from someone with an opposing point of view.  The USCG is a fine organisation.  However, it is an instrument of the US Government, just as the other armed services of the US are.   It implements the policy that it sets out for it and institutes the best method, according to it, to achieve the objectives desired.  If the US Government tells it to lie about something which did or did not occur, it will do so, just as the US Government instructed the USN to lie about the Gulf of Tonkin "incident".   I am unsure why you appear to be upset with me stating facts like that...

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #729 on: January 10, 2017, 07:29:16 am »

If you perceived my post as a "rant", I feel sorry for you.  It's obvious you've never encountered calm, reasoned discussion from someone with an opposing point of view.  The USCG is a fine organisation.  However, it is an instrument of the US Government, just as the other armed services of the US are.   It implements the policy that it sets out for it and institutes the best method, according to it, to achieve the objectives desired.  If the US Government tells it to lie about something which did or did not occur, it will do so, just as the US Government instructed the USN to lie about the Gulf of Tonkin "incident".   I am unsure why you appear to be upset with me stating facts like that...


It's ok K_M.  I'm not upset with you.




Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7255
  • _ \\ //
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 09:51:18 am by Grey Havoc »
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7255
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 323
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #732 on: January 11, 2017, 10:18:07 am »

Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".

I agree. It's why I like the idea of transferring the Whidby Island-class of amphibs to the USGS.  Those, combined with HH60's are perfect for HA/DR training.  There is no shortage of HA/DR incidents in this region.

At ~15000 tons they are big.
They are amphibs so the well deck with connectors is great for HA/DR training.
HH60's have proven capabilities and is a bird the USGS uses today.
Whidby Island-class comes with significant defensive systems.
Built to military survivability class II standard.
It can be done immediately. 
US Navy amphib plans are built around San Antonio-class ships (LX/R)
Two SA-Class LPD's are being built today.  There is industrial capacity to add another in the shipbuilding plan.

Actually Kaiser, let me qualify where I agree.  The USCG would be very beneficial in the Pacific theater.  Joint operations is a great way for the USCG to assist, but it quite obviously doesn't have to be the only way. 

No United States government civilian or military entity ever suffers from a lack of "real legitimacy".  Why would such a characterization be considered?  Further, they would not be operating "so far from home".  Especially if by "home" we mean those areas where the United States clearly has economic and security interest. 

The name, "US Coast Guard", only suggests that they are not typically a blue water force.  My goodness, it does not define where they perform their duties.  That would ignore historical precedence.  Of course we all know there are countries that, unfortunately, do abdicate their responsibilities.  They either don't choose to, or perhaps, they just don't have the ability to protect their national interests.  That doesn't mean the United States must operate in the same etiolated manner. 

The mission of the USGS is "to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security." 

That, my friend, includes the South China Sea.

Not looking to start an argument about "legitimacy" :)
Would just add that it would look decidedly odd if the US tried to enforce the maritime rights/ claims of specific countries if these actions weren't agreed and in unison with said specific countries.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Reply #733 on: January 11, 2017, 03:12:14 pm »

i.) Not looking to start an argument about "legitimacy" :)
Would just add that ii.) it would look decidedly odd if the US tried to enforce the maritime rights/ claims of specific countries if these actions weren't agreed and in unison with said specific countries.

i.) No.  Your argument was about "real legitimacy."  You're trying to make your argument sound reasonable.  But reasonableness isn't relevant if the argument is based on the wrong claim. 

ii.) This has nothing to do with the claims of any country.  There is no need for the US to work with any other country.  These are international waters.  This US may deem this behavior is disrupting international norms and placing trade and US security at risk.  The US is the largest importer in the world, mostly by ship.  If the US decides their security interests include addressing miscreant behavior by utilizing the USGS (for which it is included in the USGS Mission Statement) it is within their rights to do so.

The US has decided to (literally) pay the price to ensure that it's shipping is not threatened by any actor seeking hegemony in a region.  That interest also benefits other countries around the world.  Especially those for which trade transit is also mostly by ship.

Some may chose to feel that the actions by the PRC are reasonable and proportional.  The US has the right and the wherewithal to not only disagree, but take action to ensure any threats are countered or otherwise eliminated.  The US Secretary of State-designate has implied that changing the norms by which shipping or aircraft transit the region through threat of force will not be acceptable.

My supposition is that the PRC is receiving a message through the president-elects actions.  One elucidated by James Fallows in the Atlantic last month from which I'll paraphrase.  The PRC can do this the easy way, or the hard way. The United States would prefer the easier path of cooperation and international norms which has been so beneficial to both countries. But the United States is preparing for the hard way.

Personally, I hope the PRC changes course.





« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 03:14:57 pm by NeilChapman »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7255
  • _ \\ //
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 03:10:54 am by Grey Havoc »
To the Stars