Article

2005-10-31 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-10-31 10:10|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 On the other hand, if you look at what the Australians did in East Timor, using commercial high-speed catamarans, they are between 25 and 50 Marines per sailor. Using a ship that is one-tenth the cost and three times the speed. And the commercial ship has less than half the draft so consequently it can go into five times as many ports to include many unprepared

And if you only use the military as "sys admins" no doubt that's more or less adequate.

Of course, there's the niggling possibility of real combat ops, in which case the Marines and sailors might want a bit more power and protections. But hey - as Clinton showed, we're past all that icky violence now.

Posted by defense techie 2005-10-31 11:01|| 2005-10-31 11:01|| Front Page Top

#2 We always manage to do less with more.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-10-31 12:04|| 2005-10-31 12:04|| Front Page Top

#3 The East Timor operation was an unopposed landing into a port.

The reason the Aussies used commercial ships is because they had no other capability. I wouldn't call that a winning strategy. If I recall correctly, they had one modern high-speed amphib, that was restricted to 11 knots or whatever the convoy speed was.

Posted by gromky">gromky 2005-10-31 16:54|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/] 2005-10-31 16:54|| Front Page Top

#4 Using a ship that is one-tenth the cost and three times the speed.

Then you better build ten times as many, because anti-ship missiles are cheap and they go a hell of a lot faster than any ship.

Posted by Pappy 2005-10-31 18:09|| 2005-10-31 18:09|| Front Page Top

#5 BrahMos - Universal Supersonic Cruise Missile

Posted by john 2005-10-31 18:21|| 2005-10-31 18:21|| Front Page Top

#6 ?
Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Command has been open - at Nimiitz and Harbor Dr for as long as I can remember, across from NTC (or..the old NTC site). Was it ever mothballed/minimized?

Another question for the more knowledgable - how far have the Chicom subs ranged successfully in any kind of exercises? I assume we have/will have ABM capabilities on Guam, but wonder about SLCM vulnerability. Our ASW capabilities should be top notch

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-31 19:32|| 2005-10-31 19:32|| Front Page Top

#7 Most of the best of what little the Aussies had during WW2 went off to serve with the Brits. In any case, the Chicoms reportedly want to adapt US West Point-style rugged wilderness training for the PLA, espec for the officer corps of the ground forces. Question is - what "Wilderness" does the PLA in gener intend to fight on? The PLAN is also proceeding wid development of cheap, multi-armed, fast ARSENAL SHIPS as combat surface support for PLAN task forces. NORTH KOREA is also reportedly opening its northern railway systems to the Chicoms.

As for the new US CVN to be based in JAPAN, the USA should base one in Guam also, and more subs and USAF assets, as Guam is shorter linear distance to either Taiwan andor the Malaccas, plus it is dubious to expect that one CVBG can effec handle two or more local theaters at once, whether conventional only or nuclear-possible. The ongoing dev and modernization of both North Korea's and China's LR missle capability also prioritizes Guam over Hawaii-US West Coast in terms of response time unless the USDOD intends to give up ground to the PLA o'er the Western and Central Pacific areas.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-10-31 19:52|| 2005-10-31 19:52|| Front Page Top

#8 I dont know about putting to many eggs in one basket like Guam. Guam scares me, if we make it the center of our force Pacific then China may just take the risk and hit it with a nuke. It would only take one or two and Guam would be gone with our core Pacific force. Nuke mainland Japan would be like sending one into Hawaii or San Deigo answered with full force no question the public out cry would be undeniable without responce, where as Guam a small island low civilian pop large ehh Huge military target makes me question that another puss pres like Clinton, whould he counter in kind with nukes all out, would he make limited counter, would he negotiate, would he allow conventional bombing of mainland china now, this bothers me I am sure in the future we will again get a cream puff for a leader and china will move on us at our weakest time not strongest. Guam is strategic but unless we can openly declare any nuke strike on US forces or people anywere anyhow will be answered with overwhelming annialation on the offending source and make that un-changable doctrine no override, I just dont trust to make it center to our Pacific force posture.

Posted by C-Low 2005-10-31 22:07|| 2005-10-31 22:07|| Front Page Top

#9 that was my point. I'd like to see a little spread in forces. Of course, use of a nuke against our military anywhere should be met with a withering decapitation strike - conventional or nuke (for lesson's sake)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-31 23:22|| 2005-10-31 23:22|| Front Page Top

00:00 Zenster
23:51 Zenster
23:50 Frank G
23:49 Frank G
23:44 Red Dog
23:38 Hupeasing Jatch2629
23:35 11A5S
23:33 Zenster
23:32 2b
23:26 2b
23:24 11A5S
23:22 Frank G
23:20 Zenster
22:07 C-Low
22:05 phil_b
22:04 Frank G
22:01 Zenster
22:00 11A5S
21:55 phil_b
21:49 2b
21:43 2b
21:41 phil_b
21:34 C-Low
21:29 Anonymoose