U.S. Sends China Signal with F-35-Laden Warship in Disputed Sea | Hacker News Reader

U.S. Sends China Signal with F-35-Laden Warship in Disputed Sea

bloomberg.com

34 pointsjonbaer51 comments

Open articleView on HN

The title implies some geopolitical motive that is not supported by the article. It must be a slow news day.

>an amphibious assault ship outfitted last year with F-35B jets

I.e. not a carrier group which is what most people think of when they hear "F-35-laden warship"

>joined the annual Exercise Balikatan with the Philippines this month.

This is an annual exercise, not an escalation of some sort, doesn't get any clearer than that.

>The USS Wasp didn’t pass within 25 nautical miles of the shoal, according to a U.S. defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The figure suggests that the ship wasn’t conducting a so-called freedom of navigation operation, a practice criticized by China that the U.S. uses to assert international sailing rights within 12 nautical miles of disputed features.

Basically they're just in the neighborhood, not trying to stir up trouble.

>The moves come as officials in Manila escalate protests over...

There's always something else going on at any given time.

Well...war games are often used to send various signals to adversaries.

Operational F-35s in the region are absolutely intended to dampen China's military and commercial ambitions in the South China Sea.

A more interesting F-35 story today: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-f35/crashed...

This is indeed the more interesting story:

IMO this is going to be the K-129 / Project Azorian [1] all over again, with Russia, China and the US racing to recover what they can of the sensitive avionics / electronics off the ocean floor, should any be intact.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian

I suspect but not sure that a jet crashing into water would damage many of the components vs a submarine (already in water) sinking.

Article says they already recovered the wreckage.

I too was duped into assuming the headline implied a carrier group. But then I looked up the stats for the USS Wasp and was surprised to find out that it can carry up to 20 F-35s (in addition to a wide array of other VTOL aircraft) and it pretty much looks like a little aircraft carrier. And it can carry 1600 Marines. I agree with your assessment, just was surprised to learn that “amphibious assault ships” are formidable weapons platforms.

They are formidable weapons platforms. The 1600 marines are the real story.

You can cause a lot of destruction with subs and carriers in a region, but you still need people with guns to lay claim to territory, or to police it effectively.

They are formidable platforms for sure, but you aren't claiming any territory with 1600 marines against a major country with millions of troops like china.

1600 marines could hold territory against a bunch of ill-equipped and unorganized terrorists or insurgents. But 1600 marines ain't holding territory against any major state military.

1600 marines could occupy the heck out of a non-trivial amount of land. The thing to keep in mind is that it's not like the USS Wasp would show up on a beach of some million person, do an amphibious assault in it's own, and then get an Insta message from the other armed forces saying "we're gonna be late, still playing Fortnite because no parents lol". Military campaigns are ridiculously large, complex, and coordinated. It's not a one ship operation (unless you watch The Last Ship).

With air support, 1600 marines could probably seize any city on the planet. The key is, strike first and hard before the enemy has time to mobilize. Destroying their comms, they'll have no way to repel them, because aside from the people fleeing on foot, the enemy's central command will be completely unaware that an invasion took place, only that they're being attacked.

This is exactly what happened with war in Iraq. The enemy was completely unable to mobilize.

Naturally, if the enemy is already in a war-time posture and already mobilized, you can't employ this tactic for any city, but it might be enough to seize a port or other piece of strategic infrastructure (such as an air field).

1600 Marines even with air support is not enough to seize a city (by reasonable definition). Sadar City and Fallujah show that even asymmetric Opfor can provide a serious threat.

Of course this is different when conducting maneuver warfare such as the initial invasion of Iraq in 03, still took 250,000 troops 3 weeks to claim 'victory'.

If we're talking about most developed cities outside they US they're going to have a hard time waging an asymmetric war without a substantial amount of semi-automatic rifles. If we're talking about better armed populace like you are in the middle east yes it is indeed very difficulty to hold a city with such a force.

Depends on your desired level of despotism. Could be achieved with 'shoot anything that moves' strategy. Asymmetric response with artillery and airstrikes on any hostile target.

People have tried playing exceedingly dirty in the past - colonial powers, especially. It doesn't usually work. Ultimately, unless you're willing to build your own infrastructure, you need to rely on local infrastructure. That requires supporters who won't try and sabotage you at every turn, and report everything you do to the enemy. Building your own infrastructure takes lots of people, money, and time. Successful asymmetric warfare works exactly the opposite way to killing all your enemies - it works by taking a group of your enemies, then convincing them you're the better bet.

There are different approaches, it depends entirely on what your strategic goals are for the city. You can drop leaflet propaganda informing citizens to evacuate such as they did in Aleppo [1] and many other places. The premise is simple: give harbor to combatants and you will be treated as such.

Here's a great site that has some leaflets from the Iraq war: [2]

1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-...

2: http://www.psywarrior.com/IraqNFL062.html

Is the F35C even ready yet? It was my impression that carrier groups still primarily flew F18s.

Looks like they just started initial operational capability in February 2019, I think just one squadron has them

Amphibious ships like the USS Wasp can only operate the F-35B variant, which has been operational for several years.

Yes, which is why I think “marine” pops into my mind when ships with F35s are mentioned, not navy carriers.

USS Wasp (LHD-1) displaces slightly more than the USS Wasp (CV-18), a World War II Essex-class aircraft carrier. So when we say amphibious assault ships aren't real carriers, it's only because carriers have been growing bigger for some time.

Not even that - if you look at what the rest of the world calls "carriers", the US's Wasp and America classes definitely qualify. This [0] is a good comparison, if more than a few years out of date. It's just that the US operates the only nuclear powered supercarriers, which make everything else look puny in comparison.

0: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2014....

The geopolitical motive is obviously there. US Navy ships in the area are there for that.

What would people say if Russia and Cuba conducted joint navy exercises 25 miles off Key West?

A few points for perspective. The article states that US Ships didn't sail within 25 miles of the shoal. The ownership of the shoal is disputed, unlike Key West. The shoal is also over 400 miles from mainland China (140 miles from the Philippines).

"Ownership" goes to whoever can hold to a piece of land. That's how the US and everyone else did it. Case in point is Commander Perry planting the US flag on Key West and no-one else being able to challenge it. Guam (and of course the Philippines) taken from the Spanish following the war of 1898, etc.

China has learned that and won't let borders in its vicinity being decided by Western powers anymore.

The reality is that no-one is going to take those islands away from China anymore as China understood the importance of physical occupation.

Those islands are thousands of miles from the US's mainland. Those exercises are geopolitical muscle flexing. Of course they are.

It's more complicated than that.

First, this isn't an island, it's a shoal. The only dry land to speak of is 2 skerrys (32 square feet of land in total). They are uninhabited.

Second, the shoal is 400 miles from mainland China. It's only about a 100 miles from the Philippines, who have a claim on the shoal.

Third, UN arbitration has sided with the Philippines. China rejected such arbitration, but of course they would, since they have no real claim here.

This isn't just "muscle flexing" it's the US helping out an ally, one that happens to be in the right.

People can repeat that the shoal is nearer the Philippines and I can repeat that, using the same examples I already have and others, it is quite irrelevant.

The borders in the area where decided by Westerners, China was shortchanged and is now using the Western approach: Land, claim, defend.

The reality on the ground is that China (and that really does include both the PRC and Taiwan) claims this area and that it physically occupies it. Unless the Philippines and others propose to start a war the area is therefore de facto Chinese.

They do not physically occupy the land, you're thinking of the Spratly islands, where they have built several airports and other buildings. The Scarborough Shoal has no buildings of any kind, nor personnel.

My understanding is that they haven't built any structure yet but that they effectively occupy the shoal by guarding it with coast guard and navy ships: I.e. if you tried to reach the place you'd have to go past the Chinese Navy first.

Talking Key West made me browse the area on Google maps.

I found that one interesting. Reminded me of something.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@24.6285609,-82.8711957,2321m/...

Plus ça change...

China's occupation is illegal, both by UNCLOS and directly from the UN -- the Philippines won the case.

There have been international conventions for many years on how sea control works. China does whatever it wants -- but that doesn't make the area Chinese, it means they're violating international agreements and conventions and treaties.

The Russian navy does occasionally conduct exercises near Cuba, and in fact did so just last year. People don't say much of anything about it because the Russians are legally allowed to be there.

https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article205552879.htm...

Well, I'm sure that American media aren't going to title "Russia sends US signal with MiG-laden warship off Florida"... But the Russian media might.

Always check where those articles come from. Here it's Bloomberg.

It's interesting to see the narrative specifically aimed at mainland China when the claim over the South China Sea really is pan-Chinese (that means the PRC and Taiwan make the same claims).

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Russia has only a single "MiG-laden warship" and it's a worthless pile of rusty junk which probably couldn't even travel to Cuba and back under it's own power. The US considers it to be a laughing stock, not a serious threat.

It still sends the signal of "We're capable of operating an amphibious assault ship with jets in these waters" - even if there are perfectly normal reasons to be in the area.

The article states that the fact that jets are embarked is novel, which is quite a significant addition.

The sudden need to have war games near the Philippine has more to do with this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/south-china-se...

The USS Wasp [1] is the flagship of Task Force 76 [2], "the USN's only permanently forward-deployed Expeditionary Strike Group" [3][4] according to Wikipedia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(LHD-1)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_76

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Strike_Group

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_ready_group

The message of the F35 is that the US is committed to Military keynesianism.

If the article is to be believed why does the USA feel the need to police waters 6,600 miles from its mainland. Surely their claim to this area is lesser when compared to Chain, Japan, Tiawan ect....

Note: I'm not making a political argument either way here, just a quick aside about the development of the world over the last 70 years.

Since the end of WW2 the U.S. has become, for better or worse, the world's stabilizing agent. Of course there are peaks and valleys - argue all you want about American intervention in the Middle East or South America - but broadly speaking world governments expect America to take care of business.

Huge swaths of modern society depend on the U.S. being a (relatively) honest broker and protector of "peace" - two notable examples of which, in fact, are Japan and Taiwan. The latter very arguably remains independent today thanks to American protection. If China chose to claim exclusive rights to the South China Sea tomorrow, it's unlikely that Japan or Taiwan or Vietnam or any coalition of coastal nations together - without American or pan-European support - could push back successfully.

All of this is shifting, of course, as nationalist movements gain momentum and confidence in America wanes but for the moment (and the immediate future), this is the world we live in.

It's also worth remembering that USA contributed to postwar reconstruction under informal, and sometimes formal, agreements that the nations would outsource their military operations. Japan does not have a "true" military to this day, and Taiwan never developed or acquired nuclear weapons. This is at the request of USA, paid for in protection.

That whole perception of Japan not having a military is just a technicality.....their "Maritime Self-Defense Force" is easily the 3rd largest and most powerful navy in the Pacific (after the US and China).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_...

The "Air Self-Defense Force" has more combat jets that the UK's Royal Air Force, and almost as many as the mighty Israeli Air Force. The Japanese are just postured exclusively for national defense and territorial integrity....which many people don't realize includes the ability of executing credible counter-offensives to liberate lost territory. I would argue that until the past ~5-10 years or so, the Chinese stood no chance in a big fight out here in the First Island Chain. The qualitative AND quantitative differences between the Chinese and Japanese hardware were just that large.

> but broadly speaking world governments expect America to take care of business.

This is only true of Japan, who as part of the WW2 reconstruction, agreed to draw up a pacifist constitution and receive protection from the US against threats in the Cold War era.

Asian leaders have "taken care of" plenty of business using US training, money and technology. Sukarno's regime in Indonesia killed 500k-1000k people alone in anti-communist purges in 1965-66. Back in those days, you could say the words "they'll nationalize the oil fields" and the US would come-a-runnin'.

When it comes to international waters, no nation has a lesser claim. That's the whole point of having international waters.

A large chunk of US economic activity depends on trade that travels these sea lanes. Just because the South China Sea is far away doesn't mean that the US doesn't have serious interests in the region.

Something like 80% of the traffic in the SCS either goes to, or comes from, a Chinese port. I used to have a better reference but this is the closest I can find in my bookmarks for now:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180726044318/http://www.atimes...

So if economic activity is the metric that supposedly justifies US interest there, then the need to secure its vital maritime lines of communication is even more pronounced for China than for the US.

Treaty obligations spur the need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organiza...

edit: plus freedom of nav demos

We don't claim much in the region, only Guam and the Marshall Islands as I recall.

Conducting Naval operations in international waters with and at the request of our many allies in the region is something we've done since WWII.

Swap out the US for Britain, and it may be more clear. The US is a naval empire, like Britain was. Driving ships around the planet to maintain free flow of trade and military hardware is more or less the number one job when you're a global naval superpower.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-07/why-the-s...

It only sends a 'signal' if you don't believe that aircraft-carrying ships are as obsolete as the gun-carrying ships they displaced nearly a century ago.

Aircraft-carrying ships are so passé in today's world of missile-carrying ships.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com