5 ms·

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 w

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.

Recurecur 8y ago
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.
eternalban 8y ago
A more interesting F-35 story today: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-f35/crashed-japanese-f-35-wreckage-found-in-pacific-pilot-still-missing-idUSKCN1RM011 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-f35/crashed...
- dfsegoat 8y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
  - jak92 8y ago
    I suspect but not sure that a jet crashing into water would damage many of the components vs a submarine (already in water) sinking.
  - T-A 8y ago
    Article says they already recovered the wreckage.
patentatt 8y ago
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.
- dforrestwilson 8y ago
  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.
  - papermill 8y ago
    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.
    - PopeDotNinja 8y ago
      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).
    - linuxftw 8y ago
      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).
NotPaidToPost 8y ago
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?
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  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).
  - NotPaidToPost 8y ago
    "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.
    - openasocket 8y ago
      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.
      - 8y ago
mjlee 8y ago
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.
machinecoffee 8y ago
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-sea-duterte-warns-china-of-suicide-missions-to-protect-disputed-island https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/south-china-se...
T-A 8y ago
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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(LHD-1) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_76 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_76 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Strike_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Strike_Group [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_ready_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_ready_group

Recurecur 8y ago

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.

eternalban 8y ago

A more interesting F-35 story today: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-f35/crashed-japanese-f-35-wreckage-found-in-pacific-pilot-still-missing-idUSKCN1RM011 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-f35/crashed...

dfsegoat 8y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
- jak92 8y ago
  I suspect but not sure that a jet crashing into water would damage many of the components vs a submarine (already in water) sinking.
- T-A 8y ago
  Article says they already recovered the wreckage.

patentatt 8y ago

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.

dforrestwilson 8y ago
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.
- papermill 8y ago
  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.
  - PopeDotNinja 8y ago
    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).
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    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).

NotPaidToPost 8y ago

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?

WillPostForFood 8y ago
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).
- NotPaidToPost 8y ago
  "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.
  - openasocket 8y ago
    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.
    - 8y ago

mjlee 8y ago

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.

machinecoffee 8y ago

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-sea-duterte-warns-china-of-suicide-missions-to-protect-disputed-island https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/south-china-se...

T-A 8y ago

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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(LHD-1) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_76 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_76 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Strike_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Strike_Group [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_ready_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_ready_group