From DefenseNews

 

Slated U.S. Carrier Visit to Yellow Sea Irks China

By WENDELL MINNICK

Published: 13 Aug 2010 10:17

 

TAIPEI - Chinese government and state-run media outlets are angrily protesting the Pentagon's Aug. 5 announcement to send the aircraft carrier George Washington into the Yellow Sea (West Sea) in upcoming exercises with South Korea.

 

The exact date the aircraft carrier would enter the Yellow Sea was not released. The George Washington did not enter the Yellow Sea during exercises last month, supposedly after Chinese objections, but plans to do so in upcoming exercises have once again enraged Beijing.

 

China "won't stand for U.S. naval provocation," said Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan in an editorial published in the Aug. 9 edition of Global Times.

 

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu in an Aug. 9 statement to the press said, "we have expressed our clear and firm position on the ROK-U.S. joint military exercises to the relevant parties on several occasions. We urge the relevant parties to take China's position and concern seriously."

 

An Aug. 13 article on the state-run Xinhua news website warned the U.S. not to move the carrier into the Yellow Sea.

 

"Offending Chinese people is not in the fundamental interest of the U.S. Any activity aimed at pushing a country with a 1.3-billion populace with enormous potential would be inadvisable."

 

The recent joint naval exercises between the U.S. and South Korea are in response to the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan by North Korea on March 26. China has denied allegations North Korea was behind the sinking, despite the discovery of the remains of a North Korean-built CHT-02D torpedo found at the scene.

 

Luo, deputy secretary-general of the People's Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences, said the Pentagon decision was a "deliberate provocation" and the U.S. should "think twice about the maneuver."

 

"Imagine what the consequences will be if China's biggest debtor nation challenges its creditor nation," he said. Economic observers estimate China holds roughly $750 billion in U.S. debt.

 

Luo said China is the "world's largest market" and "offending China means losing, or at least decreasing market share."

 

This is not the first time Luo and other PLA officials have used the economic card to threaten the U.S. Luo, along with Maj. Gen. "Tiger" Zhu Chenghu, director-general, National Defense University, made similar public comments shortly after the U.S. released a $6 billion arms deal to Taiwan in January.

 

China discontinued military-to-military exchanges with the U.S. after the arms release to Taiwan. The U.S. is now considering the release of new F-16 fighter aircraft to replace Taiwan's aging F-5s, but China has called the release a "red line."

China may not have to irked too much longer. I saw a photo in a local paper a few days ago with a monster missile on parade that was apparently supposed to be a carrier-killer. Any information on it anywhere?

China may not have to irked too much longer. I saw a photo in a local paper a few days ago with a monster missile on parade that was apparently supposed to be a carrier-killer. Any information on it anywhere?

 

You mean the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile?

 

Quite a lot of stuff on that about; it's been irking much of the naval community for the last couple of years.

Several threads here in this subforum and links to other discussions regarding the DF-21 ASBM and the threat it (and supporting systems) may or may not pose.

Several threads here in this subforum and links to other discussions regarding the DF-21 ASBM and the threat it (and supporting systems) may or may not pose.

 

I've decided that the DF-21 is mostly a distraction... The rule I learned at my daddy's knee was, "If you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it." So the DF-21 is mostly unimportant as, assuming the assets to detect and localize exist, the actual weapon used is immaterial. The real threat here is the existing and/or planned ability of the Chinese to detect and localize our assets in the region.

I've decided that the DF-21 is mostly a distraction... The rule I learned at my daddy's knee was, "If you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it." So the DF-21 is mostly unimportant as, assuming the assets to detect and localize exist, the actual weapon used is immaterial. The real threat here is the existing and/or planned ability of the Chinese to detect and localize our assets in the region.

 

Agreed. The DF-21D is only one component of a 'system of systems', and the OTH radars, satellites, UAVs, submarines, etc all pose a combined threat to US intervention.

 

For those with Chinese scenarios for wargames on their mind, might be worth taking a look at the US DoD's report released to Congress yesterday:

 

Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China (PDF)

Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China (PDF)

 

Look at the file name for that: "2010_CMPR_Final.pdf".

 

Interesting report. Not sure why China's not developing a new medium bomber; you can only do some much with a "Badger" (although the Soviets certainly did a lot).

Not sure why China's not developing a new medium bomber; you can only do some much with a "Badger" (although the Soviets certainly did a lot).

 

Do they really need one? Bombers these days mostly either seem to be stand-off missile launchers or occasionally trucks for massive amounts of dumb iron in conditions of total air supremacy. As long as the Badgers are still airworthy, they can handle both jobs just fine, I should think. (And besides, why should the USAF be the only force with planes older than their aircrew? )

Look at the file name for that: "2010_CMPR_Final.pdf".

 

CMPR refers to 'China Military Power Report'.

Look at the file name for that: "2010_CMPR_Final.pdf".

 

CMPR refers to 'China Military Power Report'.

 

My point exactly...