China's relations with NATO and its view of the Baltics are no longer much different from the Russians. Unless we count Ukraine.
- Algeria Algerian Economy - Industries & Other Infrastructure
- Space Turkic States to launch joint satellites
- Poland Poland got approved to buy 360 Advanced Anti-Radiation GuidedMissile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER)
- Ukraine Ukrainian mechanics have mastered the repair of US M777 howitzers.
- TECHINT Germany arrests 3 suspected China spies
Breaking News China-US War?
- Thread starter Bogeyman
- Start date
China's relations with NATO and its view of the Baltics are no longer much different from the Russians. Unless we count Ukraine.
- Messages
- 4,399
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
A real cold war. Using deniable operations to complete predetermined objectives. War between the Chinese the US intelligence services is there for sometime now but I don't remember being at this scale including sabotage operations on the other side of the globe. The most notable cases are mainly in the cyber realm as far as I can see.
China's relations with NATO and its view of the Baltics are no longer much different from the Russians. Unless we count Ukraine.
This operation may have been conducted in coordination with the Russian Federation. It may even be a Russian intelligence operation that used an ally country's platform (Chinese in this case). Also not to forget that according to report by Reuters the Russian flagged nuclear-powered cargo vessel named Sevmorput who was transiting between Murmansk and St. Petersburg was in the area at that time. The ship is part of the Atomflot (nuclear powered merchant ships fleet) of the company FSUE which is subsidiary for Rosatom. Many possibilities.
Gary
Experienced member
- Messages
- 7,776
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Some very concerning data coming out from China
Gary
Experienced member
- Messages
- 7,776
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Meanwhile the U.S is expanding its SSN dockyard
Gary
Experienced member
- Messages
- 7,776
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Footage has been released today showing the Unsafe and Unprofessional Interception of a U.S. Air Force B-52H Strategic Bomber which was Flying in International Airspace over the South China Sea by a J-11 Jet Fighter with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force on October 24th; the Jet is reported to have come within 10ft of the Bomber while Flying at Excessive Speeds both in Front, Behind, and to the Side of the Aircraft.
The importance of the US Air Force's Transoceanic fuel logistics
Fun theoretical exercise I'm currently working on for the @fortisanalysis side of things: US refineries (total) only store about 40 million gallons of military-grade jet fuel at any given time, or about 36,400 flight hours for an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet launched from an aircraft carrier.
For 40 x -18's per carrier, this is about 910 flight hours. A carrier holds roughly 3 million gallons of fuel for its wing, about 68 flight hours per bird. Now consider that a notional mixed complement of 20 x F-35's and 20 X F-15EX's operating out of Kadena AFB would consume about 62,400 gallons per hour combined. Thus, just a single carrier wing and a single AFB wing's complement of fighters (80 combined) theoretically all operating at once would drink 106,400 gal/hr. So... The net stores of military jet fuel immediately available from US refiners above the global contingency supplies managed by the Defense Logistics Agency at any time represents about 375 net flight hours for one carrier and one air wing...less than 16 days of high intensity air operations by far fewer assets than the US would throw into an all-out theater conflict in the Pacific Rim.
DLA Energy ended FY2022 with 1.68 billion gallons of on hand inventory of jet fuel to serve the entire DOD combined inventory of 14,000+ aviation assets - cargo, fighter, rotary wing, bombers, drones, tankers, and recon. Which begs the question: How fast would two theaters of conflict burn through all contingency supplies of fuel? And what does DOD do when the well runs dry?
The scale of magical thinking in some of these comments rivals QAnon levels of credulity, or a total lack of strategic analytical rigor. Further, the belief that the DOD has this figured out ignores *checks notes* the DOD's own assessments of fuel and energy sustainment in contested logistics environments. In short, obvious bait post was obvious only to folks who actually know the real geostrategic state of play.
Don't miss this one guys
@Cabatli_TR @MADDOG @Ryder @TR_123456 @Yasar @Anmdt @Mis_TR_Like @Test7 @Nilgiri @Kaan Azman
Fun theoretical exercise I'm currently working on for the @fortisanalysis side of things: US refineries (total) only store about 40 million gallons of military-grade jet fuel at any given time, or about 36,400 flight hours for an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet launched from an aircraft carrier.
For 40 x -18's per carrier, this is about 910 flight hours. A carrier holds roughly 3 million gallons of fuel for its wing, about 68 flight hours per bird. Now consider that a notional mixed complement of 20 x F-35's and 20 X F-15EX's operating out of Kadena AFB would consume about 62,400 gallons per hour combined. Thus, just a single carrier wing and a single AFB wing's complement of fighters (80 combined) theoretically all operating at once would drink 106,400 gal/hr. So... The net stores of military jet fuel immediately available from US refiners above the global contingency supplies managed by the Defense Logistics Agency at any time represents about 375 net flight hours for one carrier and one air wing...less than 16 days of high intensity air operations by far fewer assets than the US would throw into an all-out theater conflict in the Pacific Rim.
DLA Energy ended FY2022 with 1.68 billion gallons of on hand inventory of jet fuel to serve the entire DOD combined inventory of 14,000+ aviation assets - cargo, fighter, rotary wing, bombers, drones, tankers, and recon. Which begs the question: How fast would two theaters of conflict burn through all contingency supplies of fuel? And what does DOD do when the well runs dry?
The scale of magical thinking in some of these comments rivals QAnon levels of credulity, or a total lack of strategic analytical rigor. Further, the belief that the DOD has this figured out ignores *checks notes* the DOD's own assessments of fuel and energy sustainment in contested logistics environments. In short, obvious bait post was obvious only to folks who actually know the real geostrategic state of play.
Don't miss this one guys
@Cabatli_TR @MADDOG @Ryder @TR_123456 @Yasar @Anmdt @Mis_TR_Like @Test7 @Nilgiri @Kaan Azman
JUST IN: JAPAN CONCERNED OVER CHINA AND NORTH KOREA Due to Beijing's heightened military activities near Taiwan, there is an elevated apprehension of Japan becoming entangled in a potential conflict Japan is conducting a nationwide military drill involving around 40,000 members of the Japan Self-Defense Forces and the US military, starting today The exercise recognizes the vulnerability of Japanese military bases, which could be targeted in potential conflicts, particularly by Chinese missile strikes Source: Eurasian Time
US military bases in Asia-Pacific
Ryder
Experienced member
- Messages
- 10,425
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
China containment policy.
US yielding its submarine warfare edge over China
China’s rapid advancements in submarine technology and detection capabilities are challenging the US’s long-established dominance in undersea warfare and posing a threat to its crucial submarine operations in the Pacific.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that recent developments indicate a narrowing gap in submarine capabilities between the two rivals, with significant implications for US military planning including for a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
In one example, a new Chinese nuclear-powered attack submarine was recently observed with a pump-jet propulsion system, a noise-reducing technology previously seen only on the latest US submarines, the WSJ reports says.
Satellite images have also revealed larger hull sections at China’s submarine manufacturing base at Huludao, suggesting increased production capabilities.
The WSJ says that China has enhanced its ability to detect enemy submarines, constructing an underwater sensor network known as the “Underwater Great Wall” in strategic regions like the South China Sea and near Guam.
The report suggests that the sonar network, improved patrol aircraft and helicopters equipped to collect sonar information have significantly bolstered China’s submarine detection capabilities.
The US has responded by deploying more naval resources to the Pacific and increasing coordination with allies. However, experts have argued that the US needs new strategies and resources to address China’s evolving undersea threat.
In particular, they mention the need for more patrol aircraft and attack submarines to track and potentially target quieter Chinese submarines.
WSJ says the changing undersea dynamics are relevant to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. It notes that US submarines would be crucial and potentially decisive in such a scenario, but improved Chinese capabilities could complicate and undermine their operations.
At the same time, the US faces challenges in maintaining its current fleet size due to retirements and low production rates, highlighting the need for strategic adjustments in the face of a more capable Chinese submarine force.
Aside from pump jet propulsion and increased submarine production capability, Asia Times has reported on China’s recent submarine technology advancements.
Asia Times reported in September that Chinese researchers have developed a groundbreaking terahertz-based submarine detection technology, marking a significant advance in underwater warfare capabilities. The technology has the potential to challenge significantly US submarine operations.
The new detection device operates in the terahertz frequency range between microwave and infrared radiation and can identify minute surface vibrations, as small as 10 nanometers, created by low-frequency sound sources in the open sea.
These vibrations can locate submarines and gather intelligence for analyzing noise signatures to determine a submarine’s model. The technology, which could be incorporated into underwater drones, represents a considerable leap in identifying and potentially countering stealthy US submarine operations.
Furthermore, Asia Times reported in August that Chinese researchers have used computer modeling to identify the tiny bubbles produced by nuclear submarines, which previously went nearly undetected.
They discovered that the extremely low frequency (ELF) signals generated by these bubbles are much stronger than the sensitivities of current advanced magnetic anomaly detectors.
These bubbles form due to shifts in kinetic and potential energy as a submarine cruises, leading to turbulence and an electromagnetic signature through the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) effect.
Non-acoustic detection techniques have been known for decades but are only now becoming practical due to advancements in computing power. Improving sensor resolution, processing power and machine autonomy will expand the range of detectable signals, enabling the distinction of previously indistinguishable signals.
Russia may also boost China’s submarine technology, with China possibly building its next-generation submarines with the help of Russian technical expertise.
In October, Asia Times reported on China’s possible collaboration with Russia in building its Type 096 nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), which is expected to be operational within the decade.
The Type 096 may benefit from Russian technological assistance, particularly in enhancing its stealth capabilities. The Type 096 is anticipated to match state-of-the-art Russian submarines in stealth, sensors and weaponry, significantly complicating US and allied efforts to monitor and track China’s submarines in Pacific theaters.
The Type 096’s development may be influenced by Russia’s advanced submarine technology, especially in areas like quieting and nuclear propulsion.
Russia assisted previously with China’s Type 093 nuclear attack submarine (SSN), which makes it plausible that the Type 096 will be no exception.
The collaboration can be part of the “no limits” strategic partnership between the two nations, with China benefiting from Russia’s expertise and Russia depending more on China due to Western sanctions.
The partnership may also extend to the supply of highly enriched uranium from Russia’s state-owned nuclear company Rosatom to China. This uranium could be used for nuclear weapons or as fuel for China’s nuclear submarines.
Submarines are poised to be the capital ships of a potential US-China conflict over Taiwan. In a March 2023 article for the US Naval Institute, Mike Sweeney mentions that submarines, rather than aircraft carriers, will dominate future naval warfare.
Sweeney says surface vessels would be too vulnerable against land-based aircraft, anti-ship missiles and submarines, thus making undersea warfare more pivotal.
Regarding China’s underwater warfare capabilities, he argues that China’s naval modernization has yet to catch up with the US in nuclear submarine technology. He argues that China’s antisubmarine warfare capabilities have historically been underinvested in.
He says China still needs to enhance its undersea warfare capabilities to become a global naval power. At the same time, Sweeney acknowledges that the US Navy’s submarine forces face limitations in the Pacific due to numerical constraints, maintenance cycles, and global commitments.
He notes a shift towards funding Columbia-class SSBNs could potentially impact the availability of other submarine types such as the Virginia-class SSN and the unique capabilities of Ohio-class cruise missile nuclear submarines (SSGN).
He suggests that to improve US undersea warfare capabilities vis-a-vis China, the US Navy should consider diverting some Columbia-class SSBNs to conventional roles or introduce SSGN derivatives earlier than scheduled.
Sweeney notes that the transition to submarine-based naval power is necessary for maintaining US superiority in the current strategic landscape, similar to the US Navy’s past shift in emphasis from battleships to aircraft carriers.
https://asiatimes.com/2022/01/sink-...edposts_origin=751181&relatedposts_position=0
US yielding its submarine warfare edge over China - Asia Times
China's rapid advancements in submarine technology and detection capabilities are challenging the US’s long-established dominance in undersea warfare and
asiatimes.com
