via Janes.
IHS Jane's previously reported on China's reclamation project in the Spratlys and noted that until recently Fiery Cross appeared to be acting as a staging post for other island building projects. Given its status as the largest PLAN facility in the Spratlys, this seemed to be an anomaly, something that the 14 November imagery has now corrected.I think Janes is wrong in their analysis.
China has been at a distinct disadvantage compared with other claimants in the Spratly Islands as it is the only claimant not to occupy an island with an airfield. Taiwan has Itu Aba (Taiping) island, the Philippines has Pagasa island, Malaysia has Swallow Reef (a reef on which it reclaimed land and built an airstrip), and Vietnam has Southwest Cay.
The work at Fiery Cross thus brings parity but is likely to cause alarm among the other claimants. China has previously shown it is willing to spend blood and treasure to assert its territorial claims in this region. Given its massive military advantage over the other claimants in terms of quantity and quality of materiel, this facility appears purpose-built to coerce other claimants into relinquishing their claims and possessions, or at least provide China with a much stronger negotiating position if talks over the dispute were ever held.
China doesn't need to occupy an island to bolster its claim! Its the 500 pound beast in the room and what it says gets attention. They don't need an island to do that.
So what is it for?
I believe its a revival of the US WW2 tactics. This is simply a forward re-fueling and re-arming post....possibly for strike fighters (J-20) and as a staging point for amphibious assaults. Why build a sea base that can be sunk when you can simply use an island as your transfer point?
I don't see this as a threat but it should be watched. This one island (if I'm correct) could give us insight into how the Chinese want to fight us...and if it does turn out to be an important hub then mines and runway cratering bombs can knock it out in short order.
I think it will be interesting to see if they stage just a temporary det or some kind of permanent fighter presence, that should give us an idea of China's intentions. Putting a couple of J11s or even down the road a couple of J20s on a regular basis, would pretty much stack a claim and would be a middle finger to the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your general idea, isn't this the 3rd or 4th island in the SCS that China has been building up? I asked the Jane's guy I know about that. This isn't anymore about stacking a claim, this is island hopping just like US forces did in WWII!
Unrelated news, France looks like it might deliver first Mistral:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/france-just-agreed-deadline-deliver-211900970.html
There are now 2 ships ready for delivery.
DeleteJane's is actually pretty dead on in their analysis on this content, in my opinion at least. It's everything about asserting definitive unilateral claim to disputed area, as being indisputably sovereign territory. It's totally about establishing the largest air base and naval port in the Spratly's -- supporting a strategy to intimidate and coerce all others with a beef into submission. Without a single shot fired.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, I'd disagree perhaps with Jane's in their viewpoint that this construction merely brings PRC govt into 'parity'. The runway will likely be strategic in length and not some mere light turbo-prop capable replenishment sort, as are the others mentioned. This new construction will give overwhelming, asymmetrical and strategic advantage to PRC govt side. The anti-thesis of parity. But it will likely not be the end of construction plans in the 'indisputable area' either.
How to respond? With very well calculated and smart chess playing diplomacy. As there are definite flaws and illegitimacy in the current PRC model being employed, which can certainly be challenged and responded to.
where is the flaw? they built a freaking island in the middle of the ocean! they're putting an airstrip on it that can handle bombers, heavy transports and big fighters.
Deletethey're laying a claim to territory but at the same time not actually "settling" an island!
where is the flaw!!!! diplomacy won't work because of the very nature of western govts...ours change and so do priorities. communist govts remain the same. its perfect.
The 'flaws' being the aggressive and likely international-violating policies being implemented by current PRC govt, vis-a-vis disputed territories in SCS, e.g.. Such illegit moves can absolutely be opposed and challenged legally and diplomatically, et al. Hence, Beijing foreign policy is already seen as being influenced by likely underestimated push-back (resistance) and is recently taking a more conciliatory approach. (needing to be verified). And I'm not quite sure what you mean when saying communist govts (e.g., PRC-CCP) remain the same? PRC govt has totally been changing and taking a evolutionary path, via various economic reforms and liberalization, e.g. Communist parties are usually a tactic anyway, by which to maintain absolute power. Both priorities and tactics change throughout history by all governments?
DeleteOnce they put 15 J11s or J20s on these islands, it's going to be "indisputably sovereign territory"!
ReplyDeleteHow do you say "come and get us" in Chinese?
under the LOST treaty 200 miles from your territory is your economic exclusion zone, this could be them asserting those rights in the spratlys they have been doing, they built a light house on a reef just to assert that not long ago.
ReplyDeleteAfter a number of comments from a guy who did joint attack planning IRL, "runway cratering bombs" are a myth.
ReplyDeleteThey exist, they just never work anything close to advertising claims.
Attack planners wait for someone who doesn't know any better to suggest sorties targeting runways, then quietly strangle them in the maintenance closet when no one's looking, and the later attack parameters generally improve 2000%, without any increase in mission loss rates.
Ask around.
don't need to ask around. well aware of the performance of the (was it called durandel?) runway cratering bombs. i also know that they weren't used to "full specs". they're suppose to include anti-personnel bomblets that explode when the air bubas come out to fill the holes.
Deletethe Tornado crews did good work in Gulf War 1 you can't take that away from them. i assumed perhaps in error that advancements came along and made them more effective.
Matra durandal are pretty old... but very efficient ! I bet MBDA as already developed a successor.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAt one point, RAF low flying was something to see. When we thought they we low, the Brits were lower, scraping the ground.
DeleteThe brits lost 6 Tornados using the JP233. That is why after that everyone took a lesson and developed stand off munitions like the DWS-39 and JSOW for example.
ReplyDeleteWith Hagel being a big supporter of the pivot to the Pacific, how will his resignation and potential replacements (Flournoy or Work?) affect our plans for replying to China's actions,
ReplyDelete