US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Err...guys, this thread is specifically about the US Naval exercises in the SCS and China's reaction to them.

This long, in depth discussion is basically much more (IMHO) about China's strategy and understanding and actions regarding Maritime law.

Let's keep the actual overall strategies on the Two Strategy pages. They were specifically created for that.

One of the Chinese Strategy and is in the Chinese Strategic Defense Forum.

The other is about other nations' strategy in the SCS and is in here in the world Armed Forces Forum.

This thread though is meant to be specifically about the tactical, local US Navy operations in the SCS and China's direct tactical response to that.

I will take another look at all of these comments and move the Chinese Strategy nes to that thread.

Thanks.
 
found at NavyTimes China tells others don't 'stir up trouble' in South China Sea
China on Sunday told other countries not to "deliberately stir up trouble" in the disputed South China Sea, while insisting it has no intention of militarizing the strategically vital area even though it has increased construction activities there.

Deputy Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin reiterated China's position that its construction of artificial islands in the sea was designed to "provide public service" to the region by helping ships and fishermen and disaster relief efforts. This also includes military facilities to protect the islands and reefs, which are located far from mainland China, he said.

Since 2013, China has accelerated the creation of new outposts by piling sand atop reefs and atolls, and then adding buildings, ports and airstrips big enough to handle bombers and fighter jets — activities seen as an attempt to change the territorial status quo by changing the geography.

"One should never link the military facilities with efforts to militarize the South China Sea," Liu said. "This is a false argument. It is a consistent Chinese position to firmly oppose the militarization of the South China Sea."

Other countries "should not deliberately stir up trouble but contribute to the peace and stability of the region," he said.

Although Liu's statement broke no new ground — China has said this in various ways before — the setting for his remarks was significant: an Asian summit also attended by President Obama, whose administration has backed the Philippines and other Southeast Asian countries who have long-standing disputes with China in the South China Sea.

Liu's comments also serve to send a notice to China's rivals in the region that it will not back down from its position on the resource-rich sea, irrespective of pressure from the United States. While it opposes any U.S. military incursion, China sees its own military presence there as justifiable.

Liu is at the summit accompanying Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.

At a separate news conference, Obama said the issue was a "key topic" at the summit of 18 countries that included China, as well as at a separate summit he had with leaders of 10 Southeast Asian countries.

"Many leaders spoke about the need to uphold international principles, including the freedom of navigation, and overflight and the peaceful resolution of disputes," Obama said.

"My fellow leaders from Japan, Australia and the Philippines have reaffirmed that our treaty alliances remained the foundation of regional security. The United States is boosting our support for the Philippines maritime capabilities and those of our regional partners," Obama said. The other claimants in Southeast Asia are Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.

The U.S. and others have called on Beijing to halt the construction, saying they are destabilizing an increasingly militarized region. Washington angered China by sending a warship inside a 12-nautical-mile (22-kilometer) territorial limit around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago, where China and the Philippines have competing claims.

Liu called the USS Lassen's voyage last month a "political provocation."

"Is this a trend of militarization that calls for our alert?" Liu asked. "We hope regional countries and those outside the region will make positive and constructive contribution to our efforts to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. Don't look for trouble."

He said out of the scores of islands, reefs and atolls in the vast sea, China has occupied only seven small islands and reefs in waters under its jurisdiction. Without naming any country, he accused three of them of occupying 42 "illegally." One of them, he said, controls 29, another one eight and the third country five.

With the waterway a crucial trade passage, he said freedom of navigation and peace and security of the area are crucial to China's economic expansion.

Liu denied allegations that China is waiting to complete its construction activities in the sea before agreeing to a binding code of conduct, in a move to tie the hands of its rival claimants.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
It's a little hard to separate tactics from strategy, since they are closely related and often , but I will try.

Tactically speaking, there isn't really anything China could do other than protest and shadow without massively escalating the situation.

It cannot stop American ships coming within 12nm of its islands without breaking navigation rules and/or firing on them, which it is clearly not going to do.

There are no other tactical options available. Which is, I think, a bit part of the reason why America is doing it - it sees this as a "no downside" move they could make to screw with China and there isn't much Beijing could do about it (tactically speaking), which is true enough. But China's counter is going to be on the strategic level, and probably a long distant(and/or time) away.

Tactically speaking, the American "FON" does nothing meaningful or even useful.

It's only at the strategic level that these tactical actions have meaning, and that is where the bulk of a manoeuvring will be made.

Without going into the strategic, that's about all there is to say.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
It's a little hard to separate tactics from strategy, since they are closely related and often , but I will try.

Tactically speaking, there isn't really anything China could do other than protest and shadow without massively escalating the situation.

It cannot stop American ships coming within 12nm of its islands without breaking navigation rules and/or firing on them, which it is clearly not going to do.

There are no other tactical options available. Which is, I think, a bit part of the reason why America is doing it - it sees this as a "no downside" move they could make to screw with China and there isn't much Beijing could do about it (tactically speaking), which is true enough. But China's counter is going to be on the strategic level, and probably a long distant(and/or time) away.

Tactically speaking, the American "FON" does nothing meaningful or even useful.

It's only at the strategic level that these tactical actions have meaning, and that is where the bulk of a manoeuvring will be made.

Without going into the strategic, that's about all there is to say.
Well said, wolf. I also feel it's too limiting to only focus on the tactical side of US-China SCS confrontation, because the leaders of both camps publicly say the operations are/were generated to support strategic needs. On the other hand, I understand the moderator's desire to foster discussions and avoid food fights.
 
interesting:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Those of us who cover the US military in detail, those in the military and those who spend lots of time around the military tend to be at least mildly obsessed with Star Trek and Star Wars. As his opening make clear, Dean Cheng is truly one of the tribe. But his topic, freedom of the seas and how the US, China and other countries cope with the difficult calculus of Taiwan, China, the South China Sea and the larger questions of international law and trade — let alone what is right — is deadly serious. Read on. The Editor.

When the Jedi Council assembled in Star Wars Episode I “The Phantom Menace,” they discussed a prophecy that they would soon be joined by one who would “bring balance to the Force.” Little did they expect that the One would achieve this balance by collapsing the old order.

Reality now seems to be mirroring fiction, as the Administration steadily obscures what it means by the “rebalance” to Asia in the six weeks leading to the next episode of the “Star Wars” franchise.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier battlegroup both operated in the South China Sea recently, providing ample opportunity to conduct operations within 12 nautical miles of China’s artificial islands, and clearly sending the message to Beijing and the world of the seriousness with which the United States takes freedom of the seas.

After a stymied
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, where China battled hard to stop the group from taking any stance on the South China Sea, Southeast Asia is clearly becoming the focal point of growing tensions between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. As China continues to challenge the United States on the competing principles of sovereignty and freedom of the seas, the reefs, spits, rocks, and islands in the Spratlys have become the center of the battle

For the Chinese, the point is simple. As a Chinese admiral
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in London, “The South China Sea, as the name indicates, is a sea area that belongs to China. And the sea from the Han dynasty a long time ago where the Chinese people have been working and producing from the sea.” The issue is one of sovereignty, not only over the land and submerged features, but the waters, the “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” that is encompassed within the “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” now more prominently noted in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

For the United States, the point is almost equally straightforward. Washington takes no position on the disputes over sovereignty in the South China Sea, but it is firmly committed to the principle of freedom of the seas. All states may use the high seas as they see fit, as they are free for use by all. Conversely, no state may arbitrarily seek to lay claim to swathes of the ocean—and reefs do not exert any justification for territorial claims, even if one builds an artificial island atop it.

Ostensibly as a show of commitment to the principle of freedom of the seas, the USS Theodore Roosevelt operated in the South China Sea, providing a perfect venue for Secretary of Defense Carter to make a speech on this issue. This comes a fortnight after the Administration finally authorized a US ship to transit waters near China’s artificial islands, five months after it stated that American ships would sail where they wished, and three years after the last freedom of navigation operation (FONOP).

Unfortunately, if several recent reports are to be believed, these American ship transits are demonstrating not strength, but weakness.

As it turns out, the USS Lassen
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
did not engage in a FONOPS to demonstrate that the islands China has built exert no right to territorial waters reaching out 12 nautical miles. Instead, the U.S. ship reportedly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“innocent passage,” turning off its radars and grounding its helicopters as it transited within 12 nautical miles of the islands. Undertaking “innocent passage” is done only in another nation’s territorial waters.

In short, the United States, by its actions, may have actually recognized China’s claims. If the reports are correct, the United States treated the artificial island atop Subi Reef as though it were a naturally occurring feature, and therefore entitled to a 12 nautical mile band of territorial water. This is precisely the opposite of what had been announced.

Further obscuring the message, Administration sources are
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that it was both a FONOP and “innocent passage,” because the American ship was transiting waters near other islands occupied by various other claimants as well as going near Subi Reef. It would appear that the Administration was more intent on placating domestic concerns (e.g., the Senate Armed Services Committee) than in sending a clear signal.

Now, according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the USS Theodore Roosevelt did not even sail within 200 nautical miles of the Chinese islands, instead avoiding the waters around them entirely. Similarly, the American B-52s underscoring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea took care to never approach
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from the artificial Chinese islands.

It is the final step in a pivot of American statements and actions that have charted a steadily retreating course. It has proceeded like this:

  • from Secretary of Defense Carter’s
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    at Shangri-La this May that “the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as U.S. forces do all over the world;”
  • to
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    to the Senate Armed Services Committee this summer that the United States, in fact, has not sailed or operated near China’s artificial islands for three years;
  • to the apparent concession on international law, five months later, by the Lassen’s “
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    ” transit, effectively acceding to the Chinese version on the key principle of freedom of the seas;
  • to the apparent decision to have the USS Theodore Roosevelt and American B-52s avoid those waters and airspace altogether, a message that is being sent less than a month after the Lassen
Like it or not, the message that the White House is now repeatedly sending is that the United States, in fact, accepts that the Chinese artificial islands should be treated as national territory, like a natural feature. In short, the United States is acceding to China’s efforts to close off portions of the open ocean. Teddy Roosevelt’s catch-phrase, of course, was “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” To deliver this craven message via the routing of a ship named for him adds a grotesquely ironic twist to the decision.

No doubt the Obama Administration will claim that it is trying to send a different message. This would be less difficult than the White House’s feckless efforts would make it appear—American aircraft and ships should conduct normal activities within 12 nautical miles of a manmade feature built atop a reef. This could include aircraft fly-overs, helicopter operations, anti-submarine warfare operations, the operation of fire control radars, and loitering in those waters. But, as Yoda observed, “Do, or do not. There is no try.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
interesting:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Well, that's their read.

I do not agree.

The US does not have any real reason to staion ships in a long term basis in the SCS as long as the FON is maintained.

And...I do not see that as an issue. The US and the PLAn are exercising together in the ECS for heaven's skae...which tells you, that despite some of the hype, things are not nearly as "hot" or confrontational as some would like to believe.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
Did Australia Secretly Conduct Its Own Freedom of Navigation Operation in the South China Sea?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


December 14, the BBC
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
chronicling reporter Rupert Wingfield-Hayes’ attempt to fly near some of China’s artificial islands in a Cessna. The piece is fascinating in its own right – not least for its implication that Wingfield-Hayes was basically conducting his own mini-freedom of navigation operation. When Chinese radio broadcasts warn the aircraft away, Wingfield-Hayes convinces his pilots to ignore the warnings: “We are not breaking any laws, the Chinese are not going to shoot us down. You must hold your course, and you must respond to them and tell them we are a civilian aircraft flying in international airspace.”

But toward the end of the piece is an inadvertent scoop by Wingfield-Hayes. While flying over the South China Sea, his plane’s radio picks up a broadcast from another source:

China Navy, China Navy. We are an Australian aircraft exercising international freedom of navigation rights, in international airspace in accordance with the international civil aviation convention, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – over.

Though Wingfield-Hayes says his aircraft was warned away repeatedly (and aggressively) by the Chinese navy, he didn’t catch any Chinese response to the Australian broadcast. Details released later provided a specific date for the radio transmission (November 25) and identified the aircraft as an RAAF AP-3C Orion.

As Wingfield-Hayes explains, Australia has never publicly announced its own freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. Yet here was a radio transmission that suggested Australia was doing just that. In response to the highly-publicized U.S. FONOP near Subi Reef in late October, Australia
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight, but was coy about whether it would conduct its own such operations, either independently or with the United States.

ABC
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, including a clip of the audio recording from Wingfield-Hayes. According to ABC, the Australian government still has not announced that it undertook a freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea. The Department of Defense confirmed some of the details, however, telling ABC that “a Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion was conducting a routine maritime patrol in the region as part of Operation GATEWAY from 25 November to 4 December.”
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Did Australia Secretly Conduct Its Own Freedom of Navigation Operation in the South China Sea?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think distance is important for any patrol to be considered a "FON" patrol. That is to say, from what I understand, an aircraft or ship would have to be within 12nmi of any particular island or reclaimed island to truly be an FON patrol in relation to the status of the reclaimed islands.

In the last year or so, it seems to have become standard Chinese practice to alert and notify aircraft operating around those islands to avoid getting too close, including if those aircraft are still very far from 12nmi of the islands in international airspace.
Obviously, the Chinese have no legal jurisdiction for "ordering" any aircraft in international airspace to leave, and I think interpreting it as such is iffy at best, especially when China has never suggested it has any legal rights for ordering aircraft in international airspace.
For instance if an aircraft in international airspace is being warned by Chinese Navy air traffic control, and does not comply with any requests (while in international airspace), I would not consider that to be any sort of FON patrol displaying "non recognition" of the reclaimed islands. So IMO, for the Australian aircraft to truly have conducted any sort of "FON patrol" it would have had to get within 12nmi to begin with.

Simply being warned by Chinese Navy ATC while in international airspace isn't quite the same as an FON patrol in the context of the reclaimed islands, and it is unfortunate that media are portraying it differently, which has muddied the waters as to just what each action means.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Did Australia Secretly Conduct Its Own Freedom of Navigation Operation in the South China Sea?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Canbaara is trying to walk a fine line in supporting international FON norms, while at the same time signaling to Beijing it's not ganging up with the US against China. Pretty nifty move by the Aussies, and hopefully Beijing will take the olive branch in the spirit of the giving.

Given China's military will continue to modernize, be more powerful, and have greater global reach, it's better off adopting the US/International FON that gives it the greatest option to operate wherever it can. Party leaders could even blame the outdated policy on Japan, which is always popular with ethnic Chinese everywhere.
 
according to NavyTimes
U.S. Navy plans more South China Sea patrols in 2016
The destroyer Lassen's vaunted patrol within the 12-nautical-mile limit of China's man-made South China Sea islands in October was the first challenge of China's sovereignty over the Spratly Islands since the land-reclamation began. Officials say the U.S. intends to continue periodic patrols to establish freedom of navigation, laying the stakes for more confrontations.

Six nations lay claim to parts or all of the Spratly Islands, a collection of reefs, rocks and other natural features. In the last two years, China has begun constructing islands on top of the reefs and claiming territorial seas around them to gain fishing and resource rights to most of the South China Sea.

Heading in to 2016, U.S. officials say that more patrols by Navy ships and aircraft are coming. Legal experts say these patrols are the only way to protect freedom of navigation rights disputed by China.

"We need to remind ourselves that [the] U.S. Navy ... has been conducting freedom of navigation operations since Jimmy Carter was in office," said Craig Allen, a professor of marine and environmental affairs at the University of Washington School of Law. "If you simply acquiesce to somebody else's claims, you could lose your rights."

The Navy's 7th Fleet, based in Japan, regularly patrols the South China Sea and other nations, including Japan, are considering joining the patrols. The Singapore-based littoral combat ship Fort Worth could also be tasked with a patrol but Navy officials say that is less likely — the Navy tends to dispatch front-line combatants such as destroyers and cruisers into contested waters.

The political wrangling over the Spratly Islands will intensify in 2016 because the international Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, has agreed to hear the Philippines' claims.

Expect the United States to allow the international process to work while continuing occasional patrols
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top