72 Hours, No Less.

Incoming (pun is intended) Biden Admin, same as Germans, has a knack for appointing unqualified people (the fact that they are women is secondary here) to most important government posts. Enter Michele Flournoy a new Sec.Def. Let's open the biography of this "remarkable" woman. We start with "education":

Flournoy attended Beverly Hills High School in Beverly Hills, California. She was an exchange student in Belgium for one year, where she learned French. She studied at Harvard College where she received a bachelor of arts degree. She received an M.Litt. in international relations in 1983 from Oxford University, where she was a Newton-Tatum scholar at Balliol College. From 1989 until 1993 she was at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, where she was a research fellow in its International Security Program.

As you can see yourself--Flournoy has an educational background which forms, always, professional outlook in any person with IQ higher than room temperature, from the git go, in humanities. Flournoy's "foundation" is that in the literature, or, speaking broadly, degree in glorified English. In this case, how the Harvard's JFK's School of Government can help run a DoD remains a complete mystery to me, because studying "government" and "researching" it is really easy for anyone with a half-brain in the their heads, especially the way it is being done in the US, while, as an example, studying Theory of Operations or principles of weapons' design and integration is hard. Really really hard, because to even approach these studies one needs to be really good in math, physics and other natural sciences in mid to high school, then carry this "goodness" over to educational institution which trains one in STEM expansion to the robust university level and only then, one may start talking about even approaching the level of "foundation" which is imperative for understanding military, any military, but especially one on the level of the US military. 

Recall Russia's Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin's truism. 

I know a large number of absolutely wonderful financiers, economists who used to be not very good engineers, but I don't know a single, even not a very good one, engineer who used to be good financier or economist.  

Mind you, Mishustin graduated Russia's (much deeper and much harder programs than Western Bachelor of Science) famous STANKIN and completed his post-graduate studies there with specialization in Systems Engineering. So, the guy knows what he is talking about. And this is what precisely applies to Flournoy whose accomplishments under Clinton and Obama, when she was involved, include:

1. While serving under the Clinton administration as a deputy assistant secretary of defense, Flournoy assisted in drafting the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, which argued that "determined U.S. forces must be capable of fighting and winning two major theater wars nearly simultaneously." I know, I know, keep your smirks to yourself, I do;

2. While serving in the Obama administration, Flournoy crafted the administration's policy of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. She supported the surge of troops in Afghanistan and helped to design the administration's policy in that regard. In 2009, as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she also supported a US "civilian surge" in Afghanistan, coupling increased economic aid with at least 400 new counter-insurgency experts, and doubling the US military presence to 68,000 troops by the end of the year.

As you can see, Flournoy's list of "accomplishments" (LOL) includes some really fascinating things which Arkady Averchenko long ago described in his immortal "The Specialist In Military Affairs". I elaborate on the "quality" or, rather lack thereof, of America's "elites" who are utterly uneducated and unqualified to run the country in depth in all my books. Those who read them know how many examples I present in them--many, very many. Flournoy fits the bill of America's military incompetence really well. So, Flournoy's recent stratagem is a fucking wowser!

The next Pentagon chief could cement the US’ already hard defence line on China, with one contender suggesting that American forces could bolster deterrence with the ability to “sink all” Chinese vessels “within 72 hours” in the South China Sea

Let me be very clear here, before I comment on this absolute fucking stupidity which can only be used as an Exhibit A of human arrogance and lack of any culture--the United States Navy is much better than PLAN. Even if to consider the US Navy's rough shape today. It is better not only because the US Navy has submarine forces which make China's submarines look like a bunch of obsolete jalopies, or because the US Navy has more aircraft carriers. No, within First Island Chain even this advantage drops precipitously because the US Navy simply has no viable weapon systems which are adequate to deal with modern Air Defense which China has, ranging from Chinese "versions" of S-300s to Russian-made S-400. No, the US Navy's advantage is in its operational history and still (for how long, I don't know, probably another 10-15 years) very high level of professionalism of the officer corps and still very impressive esprit de corps' which rests on the foundation of a magnificent history in the Pacific Theater in WW II. China simply has nothing comparable and, in the open ocean, such as Indian Ocean SLOCs, the US Navy would tear a new one to PLAN, especially if it deploy there couple-three CBGs if, God forbids, shit hits the fan in biblical amounts. 

But South China Sea? Did Flournoy even bother to look at the map? Does she even have a concept of how naval forces deploy, how they interact with heterogeneous forces such as Air Force, Air Defense forces, how targeting is developed, what is required.... But wait a minute, even these guys understand some, hm, "minor" issue with South China Sea, because the Island of Hainan is located so strategically into the South China Sea that:

Two data points, including a Notice to Airmen that cordoned off a patch of airspace southeast of Hainan Island and a maritime exclusion zone announced recently by the Hainan Maritime Safety Administration, paint a picture of a ballistic missile test. (See this helpful map from Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum.)...In fact, Sunday’s ASBM test may have inaugurated the PLARF’s new base on Hainan Island, which is China’s southernmost province, adjacent to the South China sea. As analysts noted last year, a new PLARF base has been established some 10 kilometers west of Danzhou city on Hainan. The base’s location makes it an excellent candidate site for a possible ASBM launch that would have flown through the NOTAM zone and splashed down in the maritime exclusion zone. The range from the Danzhou PLARF base to the maritime exclusion zone suggests that missile in question may have been the 1,500 kilometer-range DF-21D.

I understand, they do not teach those things in Literature programs in universities or in JFK School of Government, but if they would, they would have provided a serious review of China's military capabilities in this precise area and how China's system out-ranges anything the United States has in its arsenal to attack China's naval assets there. Flournoy, obviously, doesn't understand the concept of a salvo(s) and deployment of forces for launching it(them). She obviously doesn't understand how criteria of effectiveness (usually P(s)--probability of success, predicated on the probabilities P(k) of hitting and killing targets) are calculated not how required forces are calculated also. I am sure she read some books on war while writing her Literature thesis--you know Lord of the Rings or Star Wars books--but evidently this lady has about the same grasp of the modern war as I have of the Chinese choreography. She really should look at the map, for a warmup, and using compass try to draw circumferences which stand for the ranges of Chinese (and Russian-made) missiles and combat aircraft of PLAAF which could be brought to bear in the South China Sea if the United States decides to commit a suicide by "sinking in 72 hours" whatever the PLAN has there. Good luck doing this, especially once Chinese Air Force (PLAAF) deploys there part of its fairly impressive combat aviation--a thing US carrier aviation never encountered in ages, in fact since the Vietnam War. Add here Russians providing real time situational awareness and targeting to Chinese... so, you get the idea. If ever new Russian 3M54 appear there, the survival rate of the US Navy surface assets will drop precipitously, but then again, who knows what Chinese already have from Russia. I know redeployment of Chinese SU-35s and SU-30s alone to the theater may pretty much close the issue of US CBGs in the area, not that they are not going to be fat prestigious targets. 

I can go on, and on, and on on this issue but... behold, this is America's (most likely) new Sec.Def--a person with degree in arts and in how to "run" the US, which is ungovernable at this stage in principle. Scary, eh? Well, welcome to the brand new world where your gender, or skin color, are the main criteria for being hired. This is not to speak of womanisation of the Western governance in general, when women with at best questionable backgrounds are being assigned top positions only because they are women, not because they are competent--there are many competent women out there, who are no political appointees but top notch professionals. They will never make the list. So, and you though Trump's national "security" team was bad. LOL. Get the load of that--that could be fun. Boy, you should read a biography of incoming Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, I don't know how Russia's professionals are going to communicate with her--excusing themselves to leave the room to go out and laugh hysterically, before returning back to the negotiating table. The farce of the American governance can not be hidden anymore, what is transpiring has only one name--full disintegration of institutions of power and that is already having very serious ramifications but don't try to explain it to incoming Administration--they will not be able to even grasp it, they are that unqualified across the board. I am sure they will be hard at work planning defeat of Russia and entering Kremlin in five days after the start of the war. Hey, and why not? I am sure Michele Flournoy can even write a book on that, after all--she has a graduate degree in literature. I am sure she can write this book in 72 hours, or 12 parsecs, or whatever...

And So It Starts.

As was expected, the US decided that she has resources to challenge China.  Including First island Chain, my oh my. 

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States on Monday rejected China's claims to offshore resources in most of the South China Sea, drawing criticism from China which said the U.S. position raised tension in the region, highlighting an increasingly testy relationship. China has offered no coherent legal basis for its ambitions in the South China Sea and for years has been using intimidation against other Southeast Asian coastal states, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. "We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them," said Pompeo, a prominent China hawk within the Trump administration. The United States has long opposed China's expansive territorial claims on the South China Sea, sending warships regularly through the strategic waterway to demonstrate freedom of navigation there. Monday's comments reflect a harsher tone. "The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire," Pompeo said.

Immediately, what strikes one is Pompeo's attempt to internationalize the conflict. I will omit now legal issues here, I am interested in the purely operational aspect of this whole South-China Sea thing. US has only one way of challenging China for real, if, God forbids, this will come to blows--these are Indian Ocean's SLOCs through which much of the resources from Africa and Middle East reach China by sea. I discussed it in length many times. First Island Chain, or near it, is a completely different game because China does have what it takes to "close" the area. As the article states:

"This is basically the first time we have called it illegitimate," Chris Johnson, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of Pompeo's statement. "It's fine to put out a statement, but what you going to do about it?"

Exactly, that is the whole point--sending two CBGs in the area is an old propaganda trick, considering the fact that apart from old inventory PLA Air Force has a rather impressive inventory of around 600 thoroughly modern and even very advanced combat aircraft with a 100 of them being fully Russian-built Su-30 and Su-35. Once one adds China's indigenous and Russian-built AD systems such as S-300 and S-400 one has to ask a question, do those two CBGs feel lucky? Once the factor of supersonic and hyper-sonic anti-shipping missiles is taken in consideration, Pompeo's attempts to internationalize the conflict begin to make sense for the American side. 

The whole thing is not about "freedom of navigation" per se, it is about waking up to the reality that the US being squeezed out of Eurasia and that it realistically has no resources to do anything about it other than threaten, make grandiose statements and impose sanctions. Militarily the US has no chance against China unless it can "compartmentalize" possible clashes on the periphery of the area and declare possible tactical success a strategic victory for domestic consumption. Meanwhile the US slaps yet another round of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 (and Turkstream) and it is becoming rather stale by now:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday warned investors in two Russian natural gas pipeline projects that they could face sanctions as the Trump administration seeks to curb the Kremlin's economic leverage over Europe and Turkey.

These are desperate moves by the US, especially when one considers an impressive dynamics of pipe-lines' development between Russia and China, as NS 2 spokesperson noted:

Efforts to obstruct the project "reflect a clear disregard for the interests of European households and industries, who will pay billions more for gas if this pipeline is not built," said spokesperson Steffen Hartmann.

Can we please drop this BS, when was the last time the US "regarded" anything other than own, and even then doing it grossly incompetently,  interests. In the same time, I do not have any sympathy for Europe--you asked for it, you got it. The US will, effectively, subvert cowardly Europeans and this economically collapsing Atlantic "union" will eat itself alive, until it hits the state of a third world. As one Russian energy expert noted few days ago--Europe is not a priority anymore for Russian energy. Back to China, the only hope for the United States in a clash with China is the fact that US Navy, for all its major issues, still, for now, remains operationally in a different league with China and that may be the only factor which realistically plays for the United States under present circumstances. In the end, China's shipbuilding industry dwarfs that of the US and is extremely well financed. Russia will take care of China's energy and, who knows, even targeting data. 

In related news, Admiral Kasatonov got its acceptance papers signed today, the official commissioning to the fleet (raising of the flag) is planned for July 21 (in Russian). Admiral Golovko is next in line. Mind you--all these ships carry 3M22 Zircon. So, all in all, things progress in a very positive direction for the Russian Navy. Considering the state self-proclaimed hegemon is in nowadays--additional safety measures cannot come soon enough. 

Grain Of Salt.

All right, I get it--China does grow her naval muscles, it is absolutely obvious. I also liked Chinese response to overly impressionable Aussies: 

News Corp Australia noted the admiral’s statements on Sunday in the context of the news that Australian warships had been “challenged” in the waters. The meeting of the two navies was downplayed by the Australian Navy, but hyped in the media as a sign of China’s growing assertiveness. Chinese state media took offense. "If Australia considers exchanges between countries as interference, it should lock itself up in the dark room,” China’s Global Times quoted the Chinese foreign ministry as saying about what has been described as a “standoff” between the Chinese and Australian ships.

The statement Australia's media are referring to is by, here is excerpt:

If Chinese leaders thought that saying goodbye to their least favorite US military commander, current US Pacific Command chief Admiral Harry Harris, would mean a more amenable replacement is on the way, they had better guess again. The nominee to take the spot when Harris becomes ambassador to Australia is sounding the alarm bells about China’s operations in the South China Sea, calling for the US to maintain a strong presence in the region and step up advanced weapons development. In written testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee released last week, the likely pick, Admiral Philip Davidson, said that China has already taken control of the South China Sea. “In short,” he wrote, “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”

If by control Admiral Davidson means ability to deploy increasingly impressive Chinese surface naval component--absolutely. Moreover, China was investing like crazy into state-of-the-art air superiority component and in developing a genuine A2/AD capability, not least through a variety of anti-shipping missiles. At some point of time it was inevitable that US and allied Navies will encounter China's Fleet-In-Being. There is, however, one field where US Navy is simply in a different league with PLAN--it is nuclear submarine component where US Navy holds for now overwhelming technological and operational advantage over PLAN beyond realistic ranges of PLAN's SSKs and patrol aviation. How long this gap will continue to exist? I don't know. I'll go out on a limb and say 10-12 years. So, if Davidson is concerned with the "security" of Oceania (boy, did those bells ring with Orwellian melody immediately), I would take those concerns with a little grain of salt.

The issue is larger than Oceania--it is global and, apart from significant traditional threat inflation for monetary (budgetary) gain, is about overall naval strategy and doctrine. Davidson was to the point when describing technological approach:

Regarding military technology, Davidson outlined a number of crucial areas in which to invest. “A more effective Joint Force requires sustained investment in the following critical areas: undersea warfare, critical munitions stockpiles, standoff weapons (Air-Air, Air-Surface, Surface-Surface, Anti-Ship), intermediate range cruise missiles, low cost / high capacity cruise missile defense, hypersonic weapons, air and surface lift capacity, cyber capabilities, air-air refueling capacity, and resilient communication and navigation systems.”

See highlighted in yellow? As I encountered last week some stupid (I am sure by one of those "experts" from US tabloids masquerading as "analytical" magazines) parallel: Speed is a New Stealth?  "Is"? Really? And since when "Stealth", much of which is PR, was the "thing"? It was and is always a speed, and these are hyper-sonic weapons and upcoming extremely capable Air-Missile-Defense complexes which already redefined naval warfare and with it the global balance of power. It will be rather fascinating to observe the US Navy's anti-shipping missile development. As recent events in Syria has shown, LRASM (a derivative of JASSM) is obsolete on arrival--it simply doesn't measure up to modern AD and EW capabilities of Russian or Chinese Navies. To have a real punch--one must today get into the Mach=3+ and highly maneuverable salvos' territory and this is not going to be easy. Not at all. US still commands an impressive scientific and engineering competence, but it will be not easy to close the gap in weapon systems which for all intents and purposes were viewed in US Navy as institutional threat to Aircraft Carriers. But it seems we really are nearing the moment of truth.