world

U.S. Navy says carrier group operating in South China Sea

30 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2021.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

GO NAVY!

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Would have really sent a message if it had been in international waters off the Russian coast...

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

It's international waters so legal. China could do so off the West or East coasts of the US, or in the Gulf. The problem is that no neighboring nations would welcome them for reprovisioning, while countries surrounding China do. I wonder why that is.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Get out of there before that radioactive cloud blows out there!

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Laguna...

That's an easy one to answer...

US military and economic pressure is the reason.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Free world , international waters, keep them free, good job USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Group, keep it up .

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Smoke and mirrors. Sadly, Taiwan can not rely on the current US government to defend them.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

K3PO, that is probably what they are investigating.

Check out Taishan at CNN.

https://oopstop.com/cnn-us-receives-information-about-leak-at-chinese-nuclear-power-plant/

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Bring it on, China. Lets see if you are brave enough with all your tough talk to step up and go toe-to-toe with the USS Ronald Reagan. I doubt it!

The USA has your back, Taiwan, make no mistake.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

go toe-to-toe with the USS Ronald Reagan.

Such a ship would be an easy target for a Chinese hypersonic missile

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

AlexToday  05:15 pm JST

go toe-to-toe with the USS Ronald Reagan.

Such a ship would be an easy target for a Chinese hypersonic missile

China doesn't feel that way, not enough to take a gamble.

"Pentagon Official Says U.S. Can 'Take Down' Man-Made Islands Like Those in the South China Sea"

https://time.com/5298185/pentagon-kenneth-mckenzie-warning-south-china-sea-islands/

0 ( +4 / -4 )

China doesn't feel that way, not enough to take a gamble.

I certainly hope so.. Too much tension in specific regions and the world in general. War, what is it good for, right?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Perfectly entitled to sail there, international waters.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Such a ship would be an easy target for a Chinese hypersonic missile

followed by...

War, what is it good for, right?

Mixed narratives are quite the tool for certain people hell bent on trying to disrupt common sense perspectives. Pro-Putin's Russia right?

Contrary to popular belief of that amazing song, the reality is that war is only good for one thing, to defend and protect the freedom and basic human rights of each other. China's CCP does not "fight" to protect the freedoms and human rights of it's people. it only fights for power, control, and oppression of others. It's their sticking point and why the US and allies will continue to enforce international laws in internationally designated waters.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Such a ship would be an easy target for a Chinese hypersonic missile

I love the fanbois who have no hands on with real live ordnance and never flew off the decks of aircraft carriers. Ponder this. The best sensor you can put in the nose of a hypersonic weapon can only see so far. That detection range and the weapons speed determines how much time the missile has to scan the sea, find a target and not a neutral merchant ship (very bad form to sink neutral shipping), lock on the target and maneuver to hit it. The faster the weapon goes the less time it has to find a target. The sensor can only scan so fast and the computers can only process that information so fast. Faster missiles miss targets more often than slower ones but they cost a ton of money which limits salvo size. There are some very good reasons the US and other western nations have stuck to subsonic cruise missiles for use against ships maneuvering at sea. Hypersonic missiles make sense against fixed land targets that can be targeted precisely because they're hard to shoot down. But against ships operating at sea, unless the right ship is directly in front of the missile when it reaches the detection range of its seeker it won't find anything to hit. It's moving too fast. Maneuvering ships and EW will help make sure that these missiles don't find targets. Btw, the sea is very big and even an aircraft carrier is difficult to find in its vastness. I know because I have had trouble finding one even when it wanted to be found. Weather doesn't always cooperate with your sensors.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Btw, for the fanbois, if aircraft carriers are so inherently vulnerable and easy to find, then why is China expending so much sweat and national treasure to build them as fast as they can and train up air wings to operate from their flight decks? Do you think they know something about the inherent hitting power of a carrier air wing? Keep in mind all those missiles you mention have to be launched from something, be it a ship or aircraft, that has to come within range of the carrier's own air wing. Good luck getting past that to launch your missiles. The Soviets in post Cold war interviews, used to consider attacking a US carrier a suicide mission. That air wing is just the first layer of a buzz saw of shipboard missiles they would have to get through to launch their own weapons. The carrier is pretty well defended.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fighto!

Bring it on, China. Lets see if you are brave enough with all your tough talk to step up and go toe-to-toe with the USS Ronald Reagan. I doubt it!

The USA has your back, Taiwan, make no mistake.

You mean the current government, whose head thinks that China will "own" the USA within 15 years and that the Uigiur concentration camps are just a "cultural difference"?

(Direct quotes.) So good luck with that faith.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Section 55 begins as follows: "China's stated ambitions and assertive behavior present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security. We are concerned by those coercive policies which stand in contrast to the fundamental values enshrined in the Washington Treaty."

This isn’t in the article above. It’s from NATO’s new “How to create chaos in the world” report. NATO? Weren’t they supposed to stay around Eastern Europe only. Not anymore. Not with Joey and his lovely liberals running the show. If these warmongers are so concerned about China why not first stop doing business with them? Nope. Too logical and too many corporate puppet masters holding the strings.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Weren’t they supposed to stay around Eastern Europe only. Not anymore. Not with Joey and his lovely liberals running the show. 

For the sake of historical clarity NATO forces have been deployed to Afghanistan since 2002 (George W. Bush administration) along with forces from Sweden operating under German command. NATO operated in the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea as far back as the 1980s defending shipping going through that region during the "Tanker War" (Reagan administration), a conflict peripheral to the Iran/Iraq War so few seem aware of. And yes there was combat out there though the nightly news seemed to miss it all. Even the Soviet Navy was out there protecting Soviet flagged tankers loading in Iraq. British, Dutch, French, Italian, Belgian and US forces were out there protecting wester shipping and sweeping Iranian mines.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The US navy conducting exercises in the South China sea's are nothing new. They and other navies do so regularly. International law allows the US, China and anyone who has the capacity to conduct training in international waters anywhere in the world.

China likes to say US forces in the area are not helping promote security when they actually are. China likes to say US training is militarizing the area but makes no mention of Chinese forces doing similar training being militarizing the region too. Lets not go into the permanent militarizing going on at Chinese man made fortresses that have recently appeared from nowhere, some of which are in other nations EEZ.

There is really no story here, just business as usual, to which China feels obliged to object to. Yawn.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's very important keeping the international shipping lines open.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I SO look forward to the first Chinese fleet cruise of the Gulf of Mexico...you'll think chickens conquered Washington, DC with all of the squawking and feathers flying as America gets a taste of itself...

"While in the [Gulf of Mexico], the strike group is conducting maritime security operations, which include flight operations with fixed and rotary wing aircraft, maritime strike exercises, and coordinated tactical training between surface and air units,"

C'mon Xi, ya know ya wanna...

And for 80% of Humanity, this kind of thing is SANE! Oh Lawdy, pathological children at play gonna end us all...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And, oh yeah, aircraft carriers are floating tombs and a PERFECT example of generals fighting the LAST war and NOT the NEXT for reasons of corruption and magical thinking such as we see here in anyone trying to suggest that, within one hour of a REAL WAR, ALL of these archaic monuments to the era of colonization will be sad memories to a hundred thousand shattered FAMILIES. They are defenseless, but enormously profitable to our parasites. "Close" only counts in horseshoes...and nuclear weapons...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Good luck on parsing what I just dribbled out above...sorry, ya can probably get the drift...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I SO look forward to the first Chinese fleet cruise of the Gulf of Mexico...you'll think chickens conquered Washington, DC with all of the squawking and feathers flying as America gets a taste of itself...

The Soviet navy conducted fleet operations within easy view of tourists on Waikiki Beach and the US didn't say a thing, They remained in international waters and operated legally. The Soviets kept AGIs (intelligence collection ships) just outside most major naval stations on both coasts and the US didn't complain. We were told not to bother them, never fly over one or do anything that could provoke an incident. One cruised around off La Jolla pretty much full time.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

And, oh yeah, aircraft carriers are floating tombs and a PERFECT example of generals fighting the LAST war and NOT the NEXT

Ooh, upper caps. Someone is really agitated today! So tell us why then are the Chinese so ardent to build a fleet of aircraft carriers? What "last war" are they fighting? Btw, I have been the same critique from individuals with no hands on experience in any navy for as long as I can remember. If you had any real experience with them you might not write what you do.

I will tell you something, ships that lack air cover are not going to survive in war against an enemy that has air power. If you have a carrier you have air cover and can do things with your navy you cannot do without the carrier and its air wing. The Chinese understand that. Up till now they have always operated close enough to the Chinese mainland to be able to count on land based air cover. Now they want to operate in blue water away from home, east of that first island chain, and they know full well that their ships will be quickly sunk if they do not have air power overhead both to protect them and to project power. The "last war" for the US was a land war against an enemy with no airplanes or missiles, only small arms and RPGs. Carrier based air power was not critical, though it was used. The next enemy will have serious land and sea based air power that can encircle US allies who are geographically close to China and destroy them unless the US has the demonstrated ability to counter them. Without mobile sea based airpower that is not possible. Example, there is no way to defend Taiwan without those aircraft carriers and their air wings. Taiwanese airfields may be rendered inoperable by ballistic missiles but the carriers can defend her from offshore. That could be tomorrows war, not yesterdays.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ah the good old days, doing plane guard for the Midway.

I have flight time in my logbook flying one of the aircraft now on display on the Midway's flight deck.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I fully support this.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There's something burning here. Are they, both of them, dying to start a war, thinking they can't wait?

The consequence would be disastrous, indeed, not only to the parties involved but also to the whole world.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

War, what is it good for, right?

Inspiration for good music.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites