A Peculiar Bit.

A very peculiar, I would say. 

MADRID, Dec 7 (Reuters) - Spain has discreetly expelled at least two U.S. Embassy staff accused of bribing Spanish intelligence officers for secrets, El Pais newspaper reported on Thursday, citing government sources. There was no immediate confirmation from either country but, asked about the case, Spain's Defence Minister Margarita Robles played down any impact on relations. She acknowledged a judicial inquiry was underway into "irregular conduct" at the CNI intelligence agency. "Spain and the United States are friends, allies and partners," she told reporters. "When there are issues that may affect us, they are discussed and dealt with, but in no way does that influence the relations we have." A U.S. official in Spain said U.S. Ambassador Julissa Reynoso would not comment. The embassy personnel, whom El Pais did not identify by name or post, were quietly withdrawn at Madrid's request after an investigation showed that two Spanish intelligence officers gave information for "a large sum".

My issue here is not that the US spies on her "friends. Everybody spies on everybody. The issue here is what could they possibly spy FOR in Spain? Possible transfers in FC Barcelona and Real Madrid? Not to diminish Spain, but there are very few spheres, other than political, which could attract intelligence collection interest for the United States. Industrial espionage? Spain plays some role in manufacturing and supply chain for Airbus, she has a very developed automotive industry. Of course, Spain has Navantia, a shipbuilding giant which builds things like Alvaro De Bazan frigates. 

But these are Spanish in hull only, the rest of it, from GE propulsion, to weapons to Aegis AD system with SPY-1D radar are all US made. That would be stupid for the US to spy on herself. So, the question remains--what the hell have they been spying on? I'll go out on a limb here and would state that this was a political espionage and buying the influence, because there are many things militarily which, after dismal performance of, say, Leopard tanks in 404, US may try to push for military contracts, not least trying to revive, as an example, all but dead US Main Battle Tank industry. Hey, at least there have been no Abrams tanks burned because they have been withdrawn from the battlefield. 

There are many juicy things one can squeeze from Europeans by the US military-industrial complex, which, in the end, was and is the goal of Washington--use SMO as a vehicle for enriching US military-industrial corporations. As for the actual needs of the US Armed Forces, the hell with them, as long as the gravy train runs. In related news:

Plus, rumor has it that VKS are now in the process of receiving a whole squadron (10 to 12 aircraft) of SU-57s, which will be completed by the end of this year. Well, this is just in case the US will decide to commit suicide by trying to attack Russia. Russia will be waiting.

About Russian Navy.

The Navy Day is coming in Russia and, amid festivities, Russian Navy is getting ready to receive its presents and those presents are really something--6 major combatants were laid down at Russia's shipyards. 

1. Two new amphibious assault ships, Sevastopol and Vladivostok, of project 23900, at Zaliv wharf in Kerch, Crimea. These are 25 000 ton standard displacement (28 000 full) amphibious ships capable of carrying 20 attack and other helicopters and two enforced battalions of naval infantry (marines). They are stuffed with AD complexes and, in general, are a sign of Russia's movement towards much greater Mediterranean presence. Here is Putin (in Russian) at the ceremony of laying down these ships. 

These ships are larger (significantly) than Mistral-class, which France refused to sell to Russia (see the very first post in this blog) and the irony of new assault ships being built in Crimea--the main reason France refused to deliver Mistrals--cannot be lost on anyone even remotely acquainted with the issue. 

2. Two new, much larger and improved pr. 22350M Frigates, Admiral Yumashev and Admiral Spiridonov, are "frigates" in the name only--these are, evidently, significantly larger displacement ships with larger number of 3C14 UKSK VLS cells and are carriers of 3M22 Zircon and whatever else is available or will be available in the future. Mind you, that Admiral Golovko of the same series is already afloat and is fitting out. 

3. Two newest project 885M SSGNs, Voronezh and Vladivostok, carriers of not only all those cute Zircons but of the improved 3M14 Kalibr with a range of 4500 kilometers. This, BTW, also applies to new frigates. 

I, of course, omit here a rather dynamic program of construction of SSKs, corvettes and dedicated missile corvettes--you can see the list here. I also do not include here introduction of the new state-of-the-art SSBNs, such as Prince Oleg of the Borey-M class. She is still to do the trials. Here is she three days ago:

I, of course, also do not expect all this cabal of "analysts" from all kinds of outlets, who had the audacity for the last few years to predict "troubles" for Russia's shipbuilding program, to eat their words. But just a side note: modernization of the Russian Navy, which includes much more than combatants, proceeds apace now both in terms of ASW forces and de facto revival of what used to be known as Naval Missile-carrying Aviation (MRA). This pace allows not only for a reliable defense of Russia's shores, which has been achieved already, but an expansion of the A2/AD bubble well into the ocean zone, if need be, and project forces in what I call a "firefighter mode". You may also call it stabilization operations, such as was done in Syria.  But then again, I will repeat myself--Russia exports political stability and this product is hot, hot, hot.  

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.