Britain to sail submarine-hunting warship through disputed South China Sea next month

[Onkel Neal]

So, the Royal Navy is going to visit the Chinese stronghold. Risky and bold, this should be interesting. :hmmm:

A British submarine-hunting warship will sail from Australia through the disputed South China Sea next month to assert freedom of navigation rights, a senior official said Tuesday in a move likely to irk Beijing. China claims nearly all of the resource-rich waterway and has been turning reefs and islets into islands and installing military facilities such as runways and equipment on them.

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2133112/britain-sail-submarine-hunting-warship-through-disputed

[Catfish]

While it is alwas good to demonstrate freedom of navigation in international waters (when challenged by e.g. China), what has this to do with
"This is a great opportunity for the UK and Australia to do more, to exercise leadership."

To exercise leadership? :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

Force Z?

[Rockstar]

I reckon leadership in this case means Aussies and UK are stepping up to the plate to protect their own interests and assure their commerce partners and others who are fearful of Chinese expansion.

[Skybird]

I have overwhelming doubts that you can protect you interests at sea with such s small navy, small in numbers. The British navy is not the British navy anymore. Also, if things go tough, such a small force will find it incredibly hard to digest even the smallest of small losses.

We. Need. More. Platforms.

[Jimbuna]

Here's hoping she's carrying enough bunkers :o

[Aktungbby]

Odd how china claims complete sovereignty over the South China Sea: In March 2010, Chinese Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Zhuo) famously said: “The Arctic belongs to all the people around the world, as no nation has sovereignty over it. . . . China must plan an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the world’s population.” 88-95% of resources in the Arctic fall within one of the five Arctic Ocean coastal states Exclusive Economic Zones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zones) (EEZ's) and China is unlikely to challenge the provision within the Law of the Sea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea) that creates the EEZ's. This, coupled with Chinese companies lack of Arctic expertise, suggest that China will partner with Arctic nations in resource extraction rather than act alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_China) In 2013, Chinese president Xi Jinping proposed the Belt and Road Initiative (https://qz.com/983460/obor-an-extremely-simaple-guide-to-understanding-chinas-one-belt-one-road-forum-for-its-new-silk-road/) (BRI), an ambitious infrastructure-building project covering much of Eurasia, various seas, and parts of Africa. At the time, few considered how the Arctic might fit into Beijing’s plans. Now, that issue has come more into focus. :k_confused:According to the paper, China will encourage its developers to build infrastructure along Arctic routes, and urge its shipping companies to conduct trial voyages through the sea. Shipping routes will expand in number, and along them China will facilitate economic and social progress (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/26/c_136926094.htm). The paper emphasizes that China has “shared interests” with Arctic nations. The white paper is careful to emphasize feel-good factors. It says that China will boost polar tourism, which will help local economies and encourage the preservation of traditional cultures. Finland’s Lapland region saw the number of Chinese tourists jump over 90% in 2016 (https://www.ft.com/content/ef791606-5262-11e7-bfb8-997009366969) It is the Arctic’s indigenous people, the paper suggests, who will truly benefit from China’s interest in the region. :nope: Hey! just like all those 'lucky indigenopus Tibetans!' The Chinese White Paper set out China's policy goals as "to understand, protect, develop and participate in the governance in the Arctic" in order to safeguard the interests of all countries and promote sustainable development. "Some people may have misgivings over our participation in the development of the Arctic, worried we may have other intentions, or that we may plunder resources or damage the environment,""I believe these kinds of concerns are absolutely unnecessary. Yeah right! Free Tibet and get out of the South China Sea ...and we'll talk...http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-arctic-policy-seeks-to-dispel-concerns-over-its-activity-in-the-region (http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-arctic-policy-seeks-to-dispel-concerns-over-its-activity-in-the-region) ATTN Moderator: this whole discussion may be properly moved to an existing thread in order to $ave :subsim: bandwidth :D > http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2225628&postcount=1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2225628&postcount=1) :yeah:

[Mr Quatro]

I have overwhelming doubts that you can protect you interests at sea with such s small navy, small in numbers. The British navy is not the British navy anymore. Also, if things go tough, such a small force will find it incredibly hard to digest even the smallest of small losses.

We. Need. More. Platforms.

They can still rattle your cage ... the British budget for the Royal Navy is to protect Great Britain not China.

As for these disputed islands in the sea, that the Philippines and even Vietnam have claimed as their sovereign area,
are being claimed by China have a more important value to them than the obvious one.

These islands could be used for Chinese submarines to surface in and resupply themselves with weapons and food in a time of world conflict.

They don't think we would target such a little island with a nuclear weapon.

Notice how upset they get when our oceanography ships get too close and now GB is sending a ASW ship to challenge their claim.

[Skybird]

the British budget for the Royal Navy is to protect Great Britain not China.

Pardon...? :06:

[Mr Quatro]

Pardon...? :06:

You don't understand budget of China vs budget of GB?

Sorry I wasn't clear enough ... yet GB has a better nuclear submarine force than China along with larger, newer and better aircraft carrier's.

They have enough force to protect themselves along with the USN as an friend for life.

[Skybird]

Eh - helphelp!:timeout:

Why would the British navy wish to protect China?

Lost in translation, sorry. I dont get what you mean with the original sentence.

And sorry again - but the British aircraft carriers currently do not impress me one bit. No aircraft, you see. And I wonder whether the RN have enough fleet and personnel left to even just escort them.

Finally, its not as if the Chinese navy and air force stink anymore. Actually they already are quite impressive. Maybe not yet on same quality level as American and British equivalents if setting them up one versus one, but nothing to just mock about. Especially when considering their numbers, and comfortable logistics. Its said that ammunition gets spend at insane speed in naval engagements.

[Mr Quatro]

Eh - helphelp!:timeout:

Why would the British navy wish to protect China?

Lost in translation, sorry. I dont get what you mean with the original sentence.

And sorry again - but the British aircraft carriers currently do not impress me one bit. No aircraft, you see. And I wonder whether the RN have enough fleet and personnel left to even just escort them.

Finally, its not as if the Chinese navy and air force stink anymore. Actually they already are quite impressive. Maybe not yet on same quality level as American and British equivalents if setting them up one versus one, but nothing to just mock about. Especially when considering their numbers, and comfortable logistics. Its said that ammunition gets spend at insane speed in naval engagements.

Sorry Sky ... I just didn't like you bashing GB's Royal Navy doing the best job they can under the circumstances. Arm chair admirals don't have budgets do they?

[Rockstar]

This is how it goes these days. China doesn't recognize the international tribunal. But we do, and challenging China's actions by crossing the 'line of death' in the South Sea with what we have available is the only way we can show our intentions to abide by the Hague's decision and international law.

It might be why Un is causing such a ruckus in the North. As it establishes two problems for us to contend with thereby dividing our time and assets. Who knows

[Skybird]

Sorry Sky ... I just didn't like you bashing GB's Royal Navy doing the best job they can under the circumstances. Arm chair admirals don't have budgets do they?
For such shortages I used tobash poltiicians, not the serving military. My often given argument is that tehcnological and trainign advanatge can only compensate so far for lacking numbers - and not more. Even a high tech ship cannot be in four different places simulatenously, and the RN sees a damn huge operation area. That they have serious crewing porblems and a shortage on both platforms and men willing to chose this way, has often been reported.

I did not bash them, Mr. Quattro. ;) Just hinted at the obvious. They are too few. Motivation and training quality does not change this.

And I did not imply at all that the British budget for its navy is meant to defend China, i do not know why you came up with that. :06: