Part 1 – News
Update on North Korea – naval activity
Naturally any significant deployment of the US Navy in the region gets the attention of the Chinese & Russian navies, especially in the intelligence gathering field. No exception here and it is likely to be the Russian Navy SSV-208 Kurily.
Although you might only have heard about it this week, frankly it isn’t a new event, but the chances are now that North Korea’s latest missile test failed, the MSM need to chomp on another related story to keep the suspense going. Both navies deployed their AGI ships back in February when the US carrier group first arrived in the region.
The USS Carl Vinson group is said to be expected to arrive off of South
Korea on 25 April. But judging by the recent flightpath of Russian reconnaissance IL-38s, intercepted by the JASDF, it seems that they are already in the Sea of Japan.
The destroyer ‘USS Stethem’ (DDG 63) has been in the region for quite a few months, since it is forward deployed from Yokosuka, Japan. So not really breaking news.
What is needed is to look at the whole picture, current and future of what US units are being added into the region. One to watch would be the Sterett SAG group on its way from Pearl Harbor. USS Sterett (DDG 104) & Dewey (DDG 105), Surface Action Group. Read paragraph 3 in particular.
Additionally, the “USS Makin Island” (LHD 8) is in the region too, homeward bound to Japan, as a part of the 7th Fleet.
MT @Amphib7FLT: @USSMakinIsland gets gas and goods from #USNSRappahannock as amphib patrolled through South China Sea. pic.twitter.com/WJBaNZJdfA
— U.S. Navy (@USNavy) April 17, 2017
Other West Pacific candidates for deployment is probably the “USS Ronald Reagan”(CVN-76), at its home port Yokosuka, Japan. However, it is on a “selected restricted availability” (SRA) maintenance period. As the name suggests it is tied up alongside the quay for several months.
Another is the “USS Nimitz” (CVN 68), which had been in the east Pacific conducting “Composite Training Unit Exercise” recently. Again not quite ready to go into immediate action.
#USNavy #USSNimitz conducts final pre-deployment assessment, COMPTUEX – https://t.co/rE7OWhM3mF pic.twitter.com/z1CrEXyoKc
— U.S. Navy (@USNavy) April 15, 2017
To note that the sources for this information are of South Korean origin, not US as yet!
Russian navy corvettes deployment – Boikiy and Soobrazitelny
The 2 Russian corvettes, (that left Baltiysk on 7 April),
allegedly going to Syria in 5 days according the US USNI news source, were escorted by HNLMS Holland and HMS Sutherland over the weekend of the 15 April. Something tells me that they are not in a hurry, as the MSM also reported last week.
Russian navy corvettes Boikiy & Soobrazitelny – Channel Transit. Not in hurry – left 7 April. N Atlantic exercises.https://t.co/w7kL4vhM0x pic.twitter.com/XuDAfqhZqo
— LeDahu ن (@LepontDahu) April 15, 2017
Well, in fact, the oiler Kola was in the neutral waters of the Bay of the Seine on 16 April, possibly on a replenishing task . Not unusual for the Russian Navy to stop by in this location, (as can be seen back in 2014. )
The predictable UK MSM tabloids went silly, branding the Russian Navy as some sort of menace, but again missing out one tiny detail regarding the lawful Channel transit of the ships. Even the commanding officer of HMS Sutherland said: “this task is considered as routine business.”
End of melodrama, until they come back through the Channel next time, I suppose.
I do wonder at the “bottom of the barrel” reporting though, especially the Daily Mail, at the ridiculous amount of rubbish churned out just by 2 journalists! (Someone can’t read numbers on sides of ships). The comments are hilarious!
The Daily Mail said that “the Royal Navy will be keeping watch on their every movement by using state-of-the-art radars to track their course and speed.” Sure but they could also wave to each other or look through a pair of binoculars, the ships are that close in all the photos. Oh boy! They even managed to quote US Navy Admiral Michelle Howard interview that I covered last week, as well as add in pictures of President Assad and Putin. All aspects of Russian bashing got thrown in into the article. Over the top.
Sputnik encapsulated this MSM frenzy rather well
Russian deployment- Asia Pacific
Guided missile cruiser ” Varyag” & oiler “Pechenga” from Pacific Fleet of the Russian Navy will be on a goodwill visit to Manila from the 20-24 April.
ECM- Russia
Further to the previous Brief about the possible ECM use against the US missiles in Syria, here is a link to an article (in Russian)
giving an overview of the publicly known aspects of Electronic Counter-Measures that Russia has. Moreover, another article from a Russian ECM expert comprehensively details the operation of a Tomahawk, why it is a very hard target to deal with and outlines how the Russian ECM and AD systems may defend against it.
Russian navy – Syria
A small detail but one to watch in the circumstances. The Russian Navy has issued a warning to aircraft, NOTAM on rocket firing exercises off the Syrian coast, next week. Could this be the “Admiral Grigorovich”?
Russian navy #syria forthcoming naval activity/ exercises – rocket test firing.
– NOTAM issued pic.twitter.com/IavbfUbd58— LeDahu ن (@LepontDahu) April 15, 2017
Meanwhile, the USS Ross left Larnaca, Cyprus at the weekend, still in the Easter Med.
Piracy
Pirate attacks have continued in the Horn of Africa. This should not be underestimated as a topic, particularly in light with the end of NATO involvement, as well as set against the backdrop of an important naval involvement in the conflict in Yemen. Despite this, the Chinese warship “Hengyang” was yet again called into action to stop a pirate attack on the Panamanian cargo ship “Alheera”.
Chinese navy rescues Panamanian ship from pirates in #GulfofAden https://t.co/Ez1CxscDCc pic.twitter.com/KHisIP5d3x
— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) April 16, 2017
Part 2 – topic
Continuing with the theme outlined by US Navy Admiral Howard, ( as discussed in previous Brief), we’ll take a look at the Russian Navy of today. Taking this extract for starters:
“According to the Central Navy Portal, the level of combat capabilities of the Russian Navy in 2016 amounted to 45% of the combat capabilities of the U.S. Navy. A year earlier the figure was 44%, in 2014 – 52%, in 2013 45% in 2012 – 42%.” source:
Bit of a difference to the tone set by the US admiral, who hyperventilated at length over the resurgence of the Russian navy. If the Soviet Navy had been hamstrung in the 80’s, Yeltsin’s era effectively kneecapped the navy and was left in a state of absolute neglect. Most parts of the Russian navy right up to 2008 was effectively inactive.
It is great for Russia to have modern warships with flexibility and the latest technology & weapons, it is a useful leverage within the context of in depth defence of Russian territory, but having a few of each class is counterproductive in my opinion, given that there are 4 Russian Fleets. To even consider these limited numbers of modern warships already built as being a threat, is laughable & pathetic. It clearly shows the US Admiral Howard as being dishonest to say the least! Meanwhile, the US Navy has recently launched its 66th “Arleigh Burke” class, (yes you read that correctly- 66 out of a planned 75, & that’s just for 1 class).
Given that the Russian navy has just sent out 2 of their Steregushchiy–class corvettes, originally ordered by the navy for coastal water operations, (green-water), on a long-range North Atlantic mission, also highlights a particular problem in their planned shipbuilding program of the last decade or so. Or is it a miscalculation in the anticipated mission role? This is due to the low endurance & inadequate fuel reserves of these types of ships.
There seems to be an inherent flaw in the way that Russian defence shipbuilding is planned, in building a low number of a certain type of vessel for predominantly what is envisaged as certain types of green water operations, but subsequently modifying the types of missions. Hence, it makes a mockery of the Admiral Howard’s comments re NATO response to Russian navy deployments.
- Usually the ship construction time for the first type is the longest, the other builds gradually get shorter in time as niggles are identified & ironed out. (Except for the Amur shipyard, which are evidently going for the opposite!).
- Operability & maintenance issues arise for different types, so by having a reasonable number of a certain type of ship, helps in lowering costs of spares, maintenance & crew familiarisation & training, (inter-operability). As is the case with the Buyan-Class.
There is a serious concern over the manner in which the shipbuilders are unable to meet the Navy’s expected timeframes and scope of the warship building programs, as well as the rate of delivery. Western experts call this ‘bragging’, maybe just a case of being over optimistic.
To give you an indication:
| Type | Planned | Built/ building | Notes |
| Ivan Gren | 2 | 2 | Started in 2004 |
| admiral Grigorovich | 6 | 3 | 2 will go to India |
| Admiral Gorshkov | 6 | 3 | |
| Project 23550 Ice class patrol ships. | 2 | Not started | |
| Buyan-class corvettes | 12 | 9 |
The shipyard announced that the Admiral Gorshov would be soon ready: in Russian
The Buyan Class are probably the most successful in my opinion. They are small but pack a punch with their missile carrying capacity. (Enough to scare NATO apparently). 12 scheduled with 9 launched. Then there are the Steregushchiy-class corvettes, 4 active with 12 planned.
Third Project 11356 Frigate Admiral Makarov in Final Tests before Delivery to Russian Navy in June. The Project 11356 class are multipurpose frigates designated for “far sea zone” operations, (blue-water), yet only 6 are planned. Is NATO trembling in their boots yet?
Likewise, the 5th built Steregushschiy-class, Sovershenny started sea trials in January of this year. It will be first 20380 corvette for Pacific Fleet.
Enhanced Combat capabilities
Russia is at the cutting edge of missile technology, for example as can be seen in form of the hypersonic missile, Zirkon. Russian media recently announced a successful test of this, but without further information as to where, duration and launching platform. It is significant that as part of the Russian Navy modernisation programme of both “Admiral Nakhimov” and the “Pyotr Veliky” nuclear-powered missile cruisers are earmarked to receive the new weapons including the Zirkon missile.
The Russian navy’s woes with their new warship builds
The order books of the major shipyards are full, yet there are problems in delivery. The head of USC stated that Russian military shipyards have orders until 2023. In Russian (Russian-State owned United Shipbuilding Corporation.)
Generally speaking, there are challenges that exist in dealing with strong bureaucratic interests, economic constraints and corruption, which is causing ‘structural’ problems in the industry. Although expectation is high, the reality of the military ship construction sector is somewhat fragile. However, there are other issues encountered:
- Suppliers of auxiliary equipment and defence equipment don’t provide/deliver on time;
- From Ukrainian gas turbine engines, German diesel power units, to epoxy deck coatings, the new building programmes are regularly postponed as a result of a lack of domestic products/ substitutes, mostly thanks to the West’s sanctions. This results in uncertainty of obtaining technology solutions within a realistic timeframe. (in Russian)
Case studies: –
Delayed- Ivan Gren (project 11711) due to botched degaussing tests.
Delayed delivery – Project 22350 Admiral Gorshov
& Project 11356M Admiral Marakov. Due to Redut anti-aircraft defence system and Shtil
If the ” Soobrazitelnyy”, commissioned in 2011, has the Redut fitted, then what is the change in situation with regards to it being fitted to the “Admiral Gorshkov”? The deputy defence minister Yuri Borisov stated his concern. Both delays are due to “a backlog in the development of missile complexes.” In Russian
Apparently, it isn’t the first time that Almaz Antey haven’t been on time with their products.
As a side note, the Admiral Grigorovich was used back in October 2016 as a testbed for a launch of the Tor-M2KM system, with 9K331MKM module lashed down on the helicopter deck. Although a navalized variant was earlier developed, 3K95 “Kinzhal”, the JSC IEMZ Kupol company is currently working on a modern naval version.
Then there is the missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, seriously delayed again by several years. The modernisation program started 2013 was supposed to have been finished next year. It was earlier announced that it would be completed in 2020, and now it is 2021. But then maybe there is a connection with the testing and future installation of the Zirkon missile system.
It is expected that the defence shipyard sector will be able to overcome the difficulties, as well carry out extensive modernisation themselves, slowly but surely. Replacing Soviet-era machinery is one example of overcoming low production. See the interesting set of interviews with shipyard workers, in Russian
Finally
Caption competition?
Now we’ll see who had their spinach today!!!
Image of sailors pushing the Soobrazitelnyy
Russia could buy or trade for some cost effective missile frigates and or GM destroyers from China. They are going to need them.
I read navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5112-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-proved-to-be-difficult-targets-for-russian-electronic-warfare-system.html
Tomahawks are scattered over Syria that did not reach target and explode . According to article the INS guidance is updated by GPS and terrain mapping. But such as INS updated by GPS would be useful in multiple applications. The article claims that Tomahawks would hit the base in proximity without GPS. But the article can not explain Tomahawks went off base. A spin to imply that a Tomahawk attack on DPRK would be accurate. But that in view of EMP and DPRK untested EW ability can not be assured. The Pentagon swears all Tomahawks reached target but Russia says it is not so . Admitting failure of Tomahawks is unacceptable to military industrial complex USA.
To note that the article is a translation of a Russian one from Izvestia.
Trump’s missile strike in Syria gave the Russians a chance to try out some new electronic warefare devices, but the idea was ***never*** to block the strike with a Russia WW3 class defense. I’d imagine the missiles that failed were disrupted with cheap lightweight units carried by Russian special forces operatives, or extreme long range experimental ‘beam’ radio systems- maybe from low orbiting satellites (or more likely a combination of various new methods).
Just as ‘small’ ’empire’ wars allow the empire powers to gain ‘veteran’ status for many of their troops (and that ‘upgrade’ is really really valuable), the battlegrounds are also ideal for testing and refining new weapon systems. The best weapons are cheap, reliable and light – or those unusually effective against the enemy’s most expensive sophisticted systems.
PS even if Russia could have stopped ***all*** of the cruise missiles, doing so would have been a ***really*** bad idea, since in warfare the psychology of your opponent matters the most. The murderous Americans would have ‘done their nut’ if the missile attack had been rendered entirely impotent. So we’ll never know exactly how successful the Russia counter missile attack was cos we’ll never know exactly how many missiles the Russians targeted for disruption.
Coincidence or what? First the Brief gets published, then now a tweet just out on the subject of the Russian defence construction, in particular the woes experienced by the navy with the development, construction & testing of the Admiral Gorshkov. Even more catastrophic than I had outlined above.
Paper dates back 2016 and yes it isn’t ready yet as of Spring 2017!!!
https://mobile.twitter.com/NavalNews/status/854416440102973440
Easy to imagine that the radar altimeter data stream is in stereo – a tell me twice approach that would encode Doppler (I assume) from a small phased array in such a way as to reveal details of contour and compare to artificial horizon and other inputs to arrive at a redundant-verified or proved position and INS correction. One wants a triple redundant position as much of the time as the situation permits – because of spoofing risks and equipment problems – things happen in violent conflicts… hey! If that altimeter were to receive a signal that rotated… and there are other ideas.All of these are obvious to radar boffins – and Ivan is as good as they come…
The strategy of Russ Navy, Russ altogether, is to prevent war, not to win it in a suicide. Given time 4th Reich will eat itself and adapt…to the tripartite post hoc global condominium.
Because it has no choice.
It is quite evident that the Russian Navy has issues. It cannot compare to many navies, not just ludicrous in the matchup with the US navy.
It’s best feature is many of the platforms have great missile launch capability and EW systems. The submarines are supposedly equal to any. Those there are few of them.
What Russia has is smart leadership who stays out of warfare with these weapons as primary systems. The Russian navy is really a littoral navy. It will be ten more years before it can stand on any ocean and look strong.
Overcoming sanctions, liberals, Soviet corruption, Ukraine’s failures and many years of alcoholism and lack of self-confidence has produced what appears to be less than good enough.
However, the Syrian war, the Asian Pacific threats, and the need to be bigger and better is beginning to change many of these deficits.
It also has bad lines of egress to blue water. Arctic and Baltic and Black Sea are traps. The Caspian Sea is land-locked. And the notion of a Pacific Fleet is just shaping up alongside China’s blue-green navy. As for the Mediterranean, it will port 11 ships one day in Tartus and have access in Alexandria, Egypt, also. Probably, as things develop, in Libya, too. But all this makes for a very complicated naval scheme that is and always will be more defensive than power projection like the US, India, Japan and Australia fleets. Both China and Russia are decades behind.
You just laid out the reasons that a Russian navy is not really that important. The only reason Russia would need a robust blue water fleet is to build and maintain an empire and I hope that never happens.
To me, the concept should be defense in depth with long range, bomber launched anti-ship missiles, subs for area denial and strong littoral navy ships for anti-sub, surface and air.
Thank you for the comments, I agree with them wholeheartedly. I have no doubt that the Syrian conflict in its widest context, has given the Russian high command and strategists a lot of stuff to ponder about, digest and re-evaluate too. Which is a good thing, imho.
“Overcoming sanctions, liberals, Soviet corruption, Ukraine’s failures and many years of alcoholism and lack of self-confidence has produced what appears to be less than good enough.”
I agree, especially the bit about liberals and lack confidence. Liberals, wouldn’t that be those who brought 2 Mistral class ships, only for them to be snatched away. At least the Russian shipyard that was involved got some good experience I suppose.
The lack of self confidence is puzzling to me, surely the Russian high command could look over to the Chinese and see what they are doing, just to compare notes?
In a ***real*** war the life expectency of a warship is measured in hours. And warships are a total waste of money without nearby bases to operate from. So Russia is ***smart*** here, and those that bash the Russia navy on strategic grounds foolish.
The real issue is the number of bases the US/UK has around the globe and the size of American’s Military-industrial complex. Russia can no nothing to directly match either, nor should it want to. Instead Russia merely needs smart cheap methods to render the miltary assets of the West useless in a real war.
Re: “It cannot compare to many navies, not just ludicrous in the matchup with the US navy.”
Please name any navy other that the US Navy, which surpasses the Russian Navy. I don’t know of any. PLA Navy is bigger, but I doubt it can compare technologically. Other than that, unless you count the whole NATO as one block, there isn’t anybody else.
LeDahu, the Center for Strategic & International studies is probably one of the worse sources to be used in regard to the status of the Russian navy especially when they are given grants to write reports for outlets that will say that Russia is the biggest threat to the earth one day, and the next day it is falling apart and cannot finish putting together a ship from years ago… Makes you wonder
The admiral gorshkov and grigorivich ships are a shipbuilding marvel- both over 4000 tonnes displacement, with more than adequate offensive capability- the author is a little unsure themselves if those tomahawks were jammed by krasukha-4, dubious at best, a mole for CSIS at worse
LeDahu what are you talking about man?
I could equally say:
“What are YOU talking about?” You might be more helpful if you pointed out where exactly in the CSIS article talks about the Tomahawk and krasukha-4 system.
There again, you can’t… because you mixed up 2 articles. One is about a Russian AD expert, the other about a warship.
“a mole for CSIS at worse”. Thank you for the joke! Just to let you, I’ll probably use more CSIS articles, as I see the need to do so, to explain, show a point. Simply because they often cite Russian media sources as references.
“The admiral gorshkov and grigorivich ships are a shipbuilding marvel”. The Grigorovich yes, the Gorshkov, no. How else do you explain it’s tortured and troubled design and service acceptance tests? On paper, it might be a marvel, but that wouldn’t explain why the design bureau has plans for a modified Gorshkov class? As another commentator, Vot Tak, said below said:
“could result in a lot of prematurely obsolete hulls which would need major refits soon after completion to keep up…”. That’s actually what we’re seeing and go to see in the next 5 years or so.
LeDahu
Thanks for the report, great job.
“but having a few of each class is counterproductive in my opinion, given that there are 4 Russian Fleets.”
Not necessarily. Times are changing fast, to commit to a large number of vessels could result in a lot of prematurely obsolete hulls which would need major refits soon after completion to keep up.
Comparison with pindo mass production is not useful. The usn is built on corporate profit, have obscene budgets and they habitually over build. No way Russia could match that, even if they wanted to.
You also detailed how the Russian shipbuilding situation is desperately in need of modernization and expansion and that current production is behind schedule, while yards are already booked for several years. With such conditions, beginning a large program would further complicate correcting the existing problems, while introducing still more.
Fast tech advance, low budgets, shipyards in need of major revamping all mean it is better to build small numbers now and remain flexible to accommodate near future developments.
“but having a few of each class is counterproductive in my opinion,”
Yes I stand by that, given what happened recently in Syria, with the to and fro of the Admiral Grigorovich. (Mind you I doubt it would have been an issue if the Admiral Essen hadn’t had a mooring accident). It means that the Russian Navy is currently over extending its ships. It still be the case if the Navy just has 2 or 3 of each. The old adage of 1 on ops, 1 on refit and 1 on a work up/ training is a valid one, even if we are looking into the next 5 or 10 years or so. This is also what we’re seeing with the Slava and Kirov class.
“Comparison with pindo mass production is not useful.” Indeed and that’s why
I gave an example,not only to unpick the US Admiral’s futile scaremongering, but also because as Vot Tak stated, the Russian Navy is not in the business of trying to compete with the US Navy but defensive power projection. But speaking from my experience in the maritime industry, having more than just 2 of each, could improve the capabilities of the navy. I also gave the example of both the Buyan and Steregushschiy class as good examples where the Russian Navy has been successful.
“beginning a large program would further complicate correcting the existing problems, while introducing still more.”
Which why I suspect that the Lider class project has been postponed and put on the back burner so to speak. Otherwise it could get messy, especially in light of the advances being made in the electronic and missile areas.
Not maritime, but Korea related:
US Military Orders Construction of 2 New Bases in South Korea Costing $133Mln
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704181052727620-usa-korea-base-construction/
“The US Army has ordered the construction of two new bases in South Korea costing a total of more than $130 million, the Department of Defense said in a press release.
“Gilbane Federal [of] Concord, California was awarded a $133.4 million… contract for the construction of two facilities: US Forces Korea Operations Center, and Phase III Facility at US Army Garrison Humphreys,” the announcement stated on Monday.
Work on the contract will be performed in South Korea with an estimated completion date of May 2, 2020, the Department of Defense added.”
Meanwhile that pindo sense of geography…
Heading Where? USS Carl Vinson Spotted Near Indonesia, Not Korean Peninsula
https://sputniknews.com/military/201704181052754728-uss-carl-vinson-indonesia-korea/
US Supercarrier Went Off Course Because White House, Pentagon Miscommunicated
https://sputniknews.com/us/201704191052762128-usa-supercarrier-lost-due-miscommunication/
Yeah, sure. :D
Russia spoofed the GPS and Siri sent them south instead of north.
The Sputnik reports seem to go hand in hand with Sakers analysis of the infighting in the US hierarchy. Miscommunication? Yeah right….seems like the White House and the Pentagon are simply not on the same page.
The Navy denying the deployment of the two additional aircraft carriers is good news.
There are also reports that Trump wasn´t even informed on the MOAB drop.
Looks like chaos….will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Thanks for your Brief(s) LeDahu. Much appreciated.
It appears that the Carl Vinson task force is on its way to the Indian Ocean. It’s probably already there by the time this gets published.
According to Sputnik photos released by the US Navy Saturday showed the carrier in the Sunda Strait (slight paraphrase). An Australian rag, news.com.au also published a similar report.
It’s possible the Vinson was up there near NK during Pence’s visit to SK and then sailed away towards the Indian Ocean as soon as Pence left the country. The time span, 4-5 days, makes it possible.
The Australian paper added that the earlier (seemingy false) reports of the Vinson steaming to NK was part of psy-ops. Well, they certainly had me fooled though I doubt they fooled the Russian, Chinese or even NK navies. Kim most likely had a sub (or several subs) patrolling and watching out for Vinson all the time.
That raises the question of who did the psy-ops (if true) target? My guess is it’s the American public, partly to enhance Trump’s image as a new John Wayne or Chuck Norris-type of hero (I stopped watching Hollywood movies a long time ago) and partly to gauge public sentiment towards a new military adventure.
Hi Basil
Thanks for the comments. The problem with doing a Brief, is shifting through articles mostly from the MSM and trying to find a source and then cross reference with something tangible it hopefully.
That’s why I’ve put the Japanese airforce images of the Russian & Chinese air reconnaissance flights. 4 days there were a lot of activity. I don’t doubt that the carrier had been there, to soothe ruffled feathers of the South Koreans & Japanese mostly. As well project as you say a great psy-op for the US and its proxies.
I don’t doubt that there is a US navy presence off South Korea. Sending USS carrier to intimidate the opponents has always been a cornerstone of US military doctrine. Except for the North Koreans have seen it all before.
http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=235255
By the photo is the date that it was released, so it could have gone through the Sunda Strait at a earlier date. But I’ll have to wait for further info, maybe the Carl Vinson is finally going to Australia as originally planned, we shall see….
Was a game of call my bluff? Yes, at this stage but I wouldn’t discount any future ops in the region.
LeDahu
“That’s why I’ve put the Japanese airforce images of the Russian & Chinese air reconnaissance flights. 4 days there were a lot of activity. I don’t doubt that the carrier had been there, to soothe ruffled feathers of the South Koreans & Japanese mostly.”
Trump played up the sub deployments more than he did the Vincent group in his fox interview. Given these subs have powerful cruise missile batteries and the usn would likely use cruise missile, rather than aircraft in their threatened strike against NK, I think those aircraft were primarily looking for subs. Except the Il-20, which is a command hq aircraft, who was probably coordinating the search.
Just to add this as another proof how disorganised Empire is.
‘A US supercarrier deployed to deter North Korea did not reach the Sea of Japan reportedly because White House and Pentagon failed to communicate effectively.’
https://sputniknews.com/us/201704191052762128-usa-supercarrier-lost-due-miscommunication/
Trump has no control over Pentagon as well as every Presitend bevore never had.
In fact the Presidents control over Pentagon is nothing more than a fairy tail caused by Hollywood movies.
When Pentagon calls for emergency then it will do what it decides neccessary, no matter what any Presitend says or not says.
By the way, who really believes, that Pentagon requires the Codes for Atomic Bombs from Presidents suitcase?! LOL
Wake up guys, this is all just show!
Turns out that the Pentagon didn’t send the CV Carl Vinson anywhere near Korea!!!!!
https://sputniknews.com/us/201704191052762128-usa-supercarrier-lost-due-miscommunication/
To be fair to Sputnik, it was merely citing the most truthful and trustworthy news outlet there ever was on the planet, CNN.
Give me a break.That piece of ‘miscommunication’ nearly caused a war, for Heaven’s sake. I’ll believe the ‘miscommunication’ bit when I see a naval 4-star’s or a senior WH staffer’s head roll on the WH lawn. We are not talking about the deployment of a tugboat here, we’re talking about the tasking of a capital ship; there can be no question of misunderstanding or miscommunicating its orders. But the American public, the remaining gullible folk who still pay attention to MSM, will probably buy it.
Doesn’t explain the US press release on the 9 April?
“Adm. Harry Harris, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, has directed the Carl Vinson Strike Group to sail north…”
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=99815
An explanation of exactly what happened
http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/the-us-didnt-send-that-carrier-group-to-the-korean-peninsula-but-did-north-korea-know-that/
We can’t be 100% sure of course, but the Admiral’s statement supports your initial assessment — something I agree with — that Vinson was ‘up north’ near NK. A carrier like the Vinson brings considerable airpower, some 90 aircraft, more planes than most air forces in the region, but the US also has plenty of land-based airpower in SK, Japan and Guam. If stealth is really what it’s made out to be, they’ll probably also include the Japan-based F-35 in the first wave if they are contemplating a first strike (which I doubt). Being mobile of course is a major plus for Vinson. It makes it a bit more difficult to target and adds to uncertainty and more head-scratching by NK planners.
My beef is with the MSM which is trying to explain the discrepancy between where the Vinson task force was and their (mis)understanding of what they were told, by putting it down to ‘strategic miscommunication’ (between WH and US Navy) and ‘mis-explanation’ of the real situation by the WH and navy; that the WH was not clued up on where one of their most important combat units was heading. Some analysts are also quick to attribute the confusion to incompetence on the part the WH and Pentagon! They may have an axe to grind with Trump and there may be confusion at the very top of the policy making process but it is nonsense to suggest that there is miscommunication of the policy, once it’s made, down to the Pentagon. Their Commander-in-Chief may appear to be all at sea (pun intended) at the moment but the US military remains one of the most efficient fighting organisations out there. That is why their ‘mistakes’ can bring disastrous results to those at the receiving end, friend or foe.
If only more analysts would follow your style LeDahu: telling it as is, adding explanations where necessary, making deductions based on clear arguments and all without attempting to tell the reader what to think.
Thank you for insightful comments. As you said in your paragraph, my Briefs are only intended to give the readers snippets of OSINT, I try to leave speculation to one side if possible and leave it to commentators such as your good self to look at the puzzle and wonder and comment.
I do agree that the idea of ‘miscommunication’ at the highest smacks of balloney. There maybe some political tussle in Washington going on, but not to the extent that one lot don’t know where one of their carriers are!!! I find that bizarre and I blame the MSM for being pathetic armchair warmongering clueless pawns. Someone is working hard to undermine the White House, that’s for sure.
The Carl Vinson strike group is headed toward the Indian Ocean for joint exercises with the Australian Royal Navy. No US carrier groups are headed toward Korea.
Source of statement would be helpful to aid commentators here?
Next joint exercise is in summer!
http://www.defence.gov.au/Exercises/TS17/
The discussion of navies as opposing forces, vis the USN and RFN for example, misunderstands the position of an Nth navy within the gepolitical-oeconomic matrix of the state sponsor of that navy. This is to say that the US navy, for example, functions as part of the US geopolitical economy. As such it must fulfill those functions demanded by that economy – and that requirement determines the form of the USN.
Similarly, the RFN also relates to the geopolitical economy of the RF.
Since the US navy has the requirement to be able to control essentially 100% of sea traffic and also to “prick” the littorals of the Eurasian land mass (think Black Sea and South China Straits, Korea, etc) it has to have many ships. Russia has a different requirement.
It has to be able to sink the US navy within the littoral and near littoral. That’s more or less all.
That’s not very hard to do and it does not require many ships nor especially many large ships.
I do not count “strategic” missile subs at all. Each fleet simply cancels the other and the missiles’ use is calculated to be suicidal (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nucl-a15.html )
The geostrategic position of the parties is what ultimately defines their policies. Russ on or in a unified Eurasia need only protect the littoral seas.
Similarly, with Eurasian integration the US navy will have no rational reason to exist as such and may be expected to adopt approximately the functions outlined in the 1930’s -by?
Smedly Butler!
Precisely why the US Navy has been the most dangerous of all MIC components.
It’s role is to keep open (to choke off to competitors or “adversaries”) the seas.
It’s true role is to project power and scare vassals into behaviors needed by the Hegemon.
Eurasian development means, as you indicate, the US Naval position of dominance will be trivialized.
Strategic power is in submarines (and soon Hypersonic weapons) both of which China and Russia have equality with the US. Thus MAD will be in vogue again, regardless of current developments.
The beginning of the end of US dominance (not threat or chaos-making) was 2006 when China clearly demonstrated the DF-21 carrier-killer missile (now DF-21D) at 1000 km.
Iran and Russia have similar capacity. Blue water dominance was zapped like no one could imagine at the time. From this point of view, in 2017, we see that the US is fearful of running its task force too close to North Korea. It has to be certain to track all NK submarines and keep constant watch on all missile launchers of Pyongyang. Pathetic projection of power against a third world nation.
And, it has to account for all of China’s weapons. Should war break out, China may have to join the fray to protect its own interests. It won’t be coming into the battle zone on the side of the Hegemon, nor would Russia. So, the US Navy has many more weapons platforms arrayed against it than just North Korean.
The Korean Peninsula may become a theater of war again. But the Hegemon will be denied possession of it.
Geopolitics is hell nowadays for the Hegemon. All that power and no one impressed by it.
@ Larchmonter 445
‘…Strategic power is in submarines (and soon Hypersonic weapons) both of which China and Russia have equality with the US. Thus MAD will be in vogue again, regardless of current developments…’
I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion…the Chinese have a long way to go in nuclear submarine technology…
They currently have a total of five boats in service…one of the type 092…which was commissioned in 1987…and four of the type 094…commissioned in 2007…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_Submarine_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_092_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_094_submarine
These are ballistic missile subs…SSBNs… they are several generations behind current Russian and US designs…
The Chinese have no nuclear guided missile subs…SSGNs… also called ‘attack’ subs…like the new Russian Yasen class…or the US Virginia class…although they are said to be working on one…the project 095…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_095_submarine
The numbers stack up like this…
The US has 18 Ohio-class SSBNs with the Trident SLBM…
Russia has 3 Borey class active and building another 5…also 6 Delta 4 class…and 4 Delta 3 class…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borey-class_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-class_submarine
The USN has 13 Virginia class SSGNs and is planning on 48 total…this outsize number reflects the US gunboat diplomacy politics…as the SSGNs are used the same way as the DDG surface ships…ie to lob tomahawk salvos at less-than-peer enemies…
Russia has completed just one of its 12 planned Yasen [Severodvinsk] class SSGNs…but it is considered a fine boat…including one of the USNs top sub admirals…
Russia still has 10 of the Akula class SSGNs in service…
Right now…in terms of firepower the US is definitely in the lead in both types of boats…however the Russians are not far behind and in terms of technology the new class of Russian boats appears to be leapfrogging ahead…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akula-class_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
In this game China is still in the tadpole stage…
As for hypersonic flight…we have to be careful to distinguish between hypersonic glide vehicles…which are basically aerodynamically shaped re-entry vehicles that follow a glide rather than ballistic trajectory…in order to counter ABM measures…
The real game-changer in hypersonics is going to be air-breathing engines running on the ‘scramjet’ combustion cycle…
These are powered aircraft…either manned or missiles…which breath air like turbojets or ramjets…but the combustion takes place at supersonic speeds…
Here Russia appears to have made some breakthroughs…and is said to be close to fielding its scramjet-powered Zircon missile…
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-hypersonic-zircon-cruise-missile-enter-15909
Russia is building on a solid technical legacy in propulsion…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
CIAM conducted six more flight tests in cooperation with Nasa and France…between 1992 and 1998…a good overview is given in this Nasa Dryden paper…
https://web.archive.org/web/20160212144411/http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88580main_H-2243.pdf
The US scramjet program is still very much in the experimental stage and not near to fielding an actual weapon system…
For the technically curious…scramjet is an acronym for supersonic combustion ramjet…
A brief primer…a turbojet or turbofan engine works on the ‘suck…squeeze…bang…blow’ principle… air enters the engine and is compressed…suck and squeeze…then fuel is added in the combustion chamber…and the rest of the energy blows out as a thrust force…the bang and blow…
http://paleocave.sciencesortof.com/2010/06/suck-squeeze-bang-and-blow-or-how-a-jet-engine-works/
At high speeds in excess of about Mach 3…the rotating machinery of the turbojet engine…ie compressor and turbine wheels…becomes redundant…as the ram effect of air entering the engine inlet at such high speeds is enough to compress the air far beyond what is possible with a compressor…
This rise in air pressure inside the engine inlet is accomplished by slowing down the flow…as the airflow slows down…its pressure increases…due to the conservation of energy principle…
This slowing down of the airflow is accomplished by the geometric shape of the inlet…some basic info here…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone
The airflow in a ramjet is slowed down to subsonic so that it can be burned with injected fuel in a way similar to that in a turbojet afterburner…
The hot gas of combustion is then accelerated through a nozzle at the aft of the engine just like in the turbojet…
So you basically have just a hole with a burner inside…that’s why the ramjet is sometimes called a flying stovepipe…
Now the problem with a ramjet is that is good to about Mach 5 but not much more…This is due to the fact that in slowing the air down in the inlet…the airflow undergoes a series of shocks that result in pressure loss…and the pressure energy is converted to to heat…
That means less pressure energy is available to make thrust…and a ramjet reaches its limit…
In the scramjet…the flow is still slowed down in the engine inlet but not below sonic velocity…this means that less pressure is lost…and the vehicle can reach much higher speeds…
However…the challenge is in combusting that airflow that is moving supersonically…usually a little over Mach 1…
Hydrogen fuel is usually used because it has fast-burning characteristics to keep up with the high speed airflow…but hydrogen is much less dense than typical fuels like kerosene…which means less fuel energy per volume of tank…and hence shorter range…
In both the ramjet and scramjet…the engine is not able to make thrust while standing still…it only begins to make thrust at high speed due to the ram air effect…so some means….like a rocket motor must be used to get the vehicle up to speed…
The big game changer would be a turbojet that can start from standstill…then convert to the ramjet cycle at Mach 2 or 3…and then to scramjet above M 5…these are called variable-cycle engines…
This kind of technology is certainly still some time in the future…as the technical challenges are daunting…
So the picture right now is shaping up like this…the Russians appear to be moving ahead strongly in scramjet engine technology…
The Chinese do not appear to be anywhere in this game…although they are said to have hypersonic glide vehicles for ICBMS…which has nothing to do with scramjet technology since these are unpowered…
In fact the Chinese are still working on creating a credible turbojet engine…and still making slow progress…here is a good overview of China’s trouble mastering the jet engine…
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-can-china-break-the-military-aircraft-engine-412424/
Their homegrown WS-10 engine…based on the Russian AL-31 is still not up to snuff…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_WS-10
The Chinese are also producing an unlicensed knockoff of the Sukhoi Su-27 air superiority fighter…and their homegrown engine is still not up to snuff…so they continue to reluctantly buy AL-31 engines from Russia…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11
Bottom line is that in a number of key technology areas…the Chinese still have a long way to go…
Their practice of making unlicensed knockoffs and trying to reverse-engineer Russian source code for the engine’s crucial FADEC [full authority digital engine control]…shows that they are not going about it in a very sensible way…
By contrast…India is currently fielding 230 Su30MKI jets…with more on order…many of which are assembled in India…and their capability is far greater than the PLAAF J11s…even the ones with Russian engines…
A similar situation in subs…India is leasing one Russian sub already and is set to get a second one…you can be sure these boats are far more capable than the Chinese homegrown subs…
The simple fact is that advanced technologies do not spring up overnight…the main ingredient is an extensive scientific and educational infrastructure…with each new generation of scientists and engineers building on the foundations laid by their predecessors…
The following truisms are in order.
The Navy is either designed “to project power” (euphemism for intimidation) overseas or strictly for coastal defense.
The US Navy + NATO’s Navies are designed to exert dominion over maritime route choke points (i.e. Gibraltar, Suez, Dardanelles, the Channel, the Baltic Sea, the South China Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, Cape Horn, Panama Canal, etc).
Thus, the US Navy is useful for intimidation but useless in the Eurasian landmass theater.
An aircraft carrier battle group is a glorified floating target intended to be a platform for aircraft bombing sorties. But, no wars can be won by the use of aerial bombing alone. At the end of the day, a land invasion is required. The examples abound: Berlin’s fall to the Soviets, Korean war, Vietnam, Yom Kippur 1973, Falklands = Malvinas, Afghanistan, Lebanon I & II, Serbia, Iraq, etc..
Wars are not won by high tech alone but by the motivation of the fighting force.
The US warrior is motivated by Hollywood bravado and hubris to become policeman of the world. But when the US warrior discovers that he is fighting for: the Kosher Nostra cabal, opium, heroin, Big Oil, Monsanto or Greater Israel he becomes disillusioned with it and wants the hell out of there. Same with the mercenary warrior, he judges whether the money is enough to risk his life and decides to quit if it isn’t.
On the other hand, the Korean, Vietnamese, Afghanis,Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, Houthis, Crimeans, Donbass are fighting for their land, sons, daughters and heritage. They have nowhere to run to but fight to death. Their resolve wins wars against the imperial looters and rapists. It is that simple.
I think that the reason for all the delays is that the Russian Navy is currently undergoing the critical phase of its modernisation. The shipbuilding companies cannot or will not expand their building capacity since after the modernisation is done, they would be redundant as current capacities are adequate for normal tempo of ship replacement. This does not take into account the expansion of capacities intended to replace lost Ukrainian suppliers, of course.
Then there are the component shortages caused by the sanctions, and the partially successful – but steadily progressing – home replacement programme.
Also, the reason for building several types of ships with limited numbers of each type could be the priority of maintaining the military R&D base – and I think that this is a really critical part of the whole strategy which the Russians got just right. For a country with total defense budget smaller than USA’s defense R&D budget alone to cause such headaches to the global hegemon is a feat to behold. It’s just very sad that they weren’t able to protect the Ukrainian military R&D base and now they need to completely replace it as it was totally dismantled after 2014.
To be truthful,I know little compared to experts on military technology. I’m more into the social,political,and historical,aspects of conflicts. Basically,”I don’t care what tools we win using,just that we win”. But luckily for we here,there are people knowledgeable about those “tools” that are able to enlighten us.I find this article and others by this author. As well as those on these subjects by Saker extremely helpful to us.And alone those lines The Duran has a story out that is very interesting. The title of the article I think is mislabeled.Instead of saying ” Russia claims this bomb can DESTROY the entire US Navy”,it should say “weapon” instead of bomb.But the article is full of interesting information. And I’m curious as to what those here that are military “experts” can tell us about what the article reports:
http://theduran.com/russia-claims-this-bomb-can-destroy-the-entire-us-navy/
I have read the details so far as they are at Duran and also at TASS and in English. I kept copies too. Strong stuff.
The prejudice I harbor about my Slavic brothers in Russia includes the idea that the harsh long winter brings out qualities that make the Slavic intellectual, particularly the theoretical people in math and physics (the same thing pretty much) superior to what we would find inside “Luck-Up-Corporation” . I am really sure about that at the American end… Sure there are a few sharp minds, but pretty much marginal at the level of weapons-building down at the shop. They tend to hire out of the Army – that tell you anything? Both opinions are prejudiced attitudes, but formed over several decades of seeing. Leo Silard wrote about the similarities – in Soviet Union, he wrote, one geniuses outvote 2 idiots. But in USA 2 idiots outvote 1 genius. But of course both share the democratic principle. You get the idea. It’s cold and we’re on a budget, so we shall study and do math and theory… It’s natural.
And I myself have a fair theoretical savvy with pushing electrons around.
So. Short answer. It works, and probably better than they say. And it’s a game changer. I am impressed!
It’s one thing to dope out a gadget, and another to jigger some bits into fitful operation – software and hardware and special bits and bobs from exotic alloys and schedules and getting the bills paid – through all that, and personalities, and secrecy, to get reliable integrated operating solid practical stuff out the door to customer That’s Impressive!
And yes, I saw no claim that I thought unreasonable or incredible. Everything made good sense.
Defending attacking forces against these systems is fraught with doubt. Plenty of doubt. And of course that’s the primary purpose of the machines, and of the announcement.
I am minded to recall Strangelove’s “Soviet Ambassador DeSadski” when he remarked about how much the Premier loves surprises… Of course the TASS description, in some detail mind you, is a “surprise” for the goodfellas down at the US DoD… Maybe Trump likes surprises?
In the fullness of time methods to locate and destroy Russian ECW will probably find some success. But it is really silly. Everybody with a brain knows where mankind has to go – the era of piracy, the anglosaxon diaspora and control by the sea people was probably inevitable (Jared Diamond touches on that, by the way Guns, Germs, Steel), and the end of that era is not only inevitable – but presto!
As our Brother Comrade Sun Tsu wrote above, it ended with the testing and fielding of “carrier-killer” hypersonic machines. We, fellas, are in the denouement. Coyote has already run off the cliff, so to speak. Next, of course, he’s going to look down…
My mother always said that she and my pop “expected the US to go fascist one day”. I suppose that’s what happens when they look down. The business in Korea is pathetic, but really! If a carrier goes to a negative elevation the consequences might well be unspeakable…
That equipment TASS describes makes me hungry to be young and in the loop, seductive stuff – I envy those hotshot Russian boffins that are slogging this stuff into effective equipment.
UB1
Very interesting material from AM, glad he brought that to The Duran.
I believe some of those ecm devices described in AM’s article are depicted in an earlier stage of development in this video from Sukhoi:
СУ – 35 (SU – 35 видео-презентация от компании “Сухой).avi
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lMrE6snluA0
The video is in Russian, but is done in such a way that much of what is shown is fairly straightforward and understandable. The video starts with details of Su-35 construction and shows the different equipment and weapons the aircraft can carry. This includes ecm devices. Then it portrays 4 different mission types the aircraft can be used on, showing tactics, use of ecm and weapons types used.
USS Carl Vinson group
It shows either it is malice, deception of the grandest order and a lot of problems at high level in Washington.
The Russian & Chinese flights this week, do indicate a presence of some US navy, maybe as pointed out below, the US submarines as blurted out by Trump.
The US article spells out the situation clearly:
https://www.stripes.com/news/uss-carl-vinson-deployment-extends-by-month-as-group-sails-toward-korea-1.464249#.WPfRF4HRaEd
In 2013 two Sub launched missiles were detected by Russia’s early warning missile launch radars in Southern Russia as originating from the middle of the mediterranean on their way to Syria. The missiles crashed in the mediterranean. Israel later claimed it to be part of a drill with US Navy to shoot down missiles. I believed then that Russia had used ECW to make them fail and crash in the mediterranean. It is entirely possible that the Russian’s already had deployed these weapons in 2013. Now they confirm it publicly to avert a WW III attempt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10282788/Missiles-launched-in-Mediterranean-towards-Syrian-coast-claims-Russian-defence-ministry.html
ST
A few months ago the israelis detected an aircraft in “their’ air space. They fired a patriot sa missile at it, along with a couple of as missile from fighters. All 3 failed to hit. The initial stories of this encounter described the aircraft as a drone operated by Hezbollah. Later, a few weeks, the Russians said the drone was theirs.
I’m guessing the Russians were conducting a test of their ecm and the test was successful.
The Iranians surprised Western Defense experts when they brought down the spy drone RQ-170 Sentinel. Since then Iran has been at the forefront of jamming ECW. Iran shares this technology and know-how with China and Russia. It was also surprising to some that two fast boats lost their GPS coordinates at the same time and ended up in the Iranian navy’s control
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-story-you-arent-being-told-about-iran-capturing-two-american-vessels/212937/
https://sputniknews.com/military/201703141051546237-iran-deploys-drone-jamming-tool/
Stars and Stripes article is worth reading, and probably keeping before it gets re-written.
How many today know that it was said by credible eye witnesses at the time of the beginning of Korean War that it was the South that not only attacked, but invaded the North.
I. F. Stone wrote the book that the US burned… Most of the received canon of myth about Korea rests on the foundation of the unspeakable fact that it was a fascist satrap of US that invaded the North. See: https://openroadmedia.com/book/The-Hidden-History-of-the-Korean-War/9781497655157
Seems a newspaper fella was in MacArthur’s office when a messenger burst in to announce that the south had invaded the north – an eye witness! And it was 2 days before the north countered and pushed the fascists south… “Written during the Korean War, The Hidden History of the Korean War was so accurate that the U.S. Government bought up all copies of it and burned them at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City! ”
How is this relevant? Well, fellas, since the fascists started the war, we may reasonably expect the fascists to bring it back to a nice hot boil, eh?
I see, however, that there was (is?) a Russian navy presence in Korea…
ECW anybody? Perhaps a repeat of the little fiasco in the med back in 2013 when the missiles crashed on their way to Syria?
Was
Now the Varyag is in Manila for 4 days.
I was watching Tillerson speak on RT – just now 20 April 11:00 Z – At 20;40 Tillerson refers to North Korea as “an imminent threat”. https://www.rt.com/shows/news/385386-rtnews-april-20-12msk/
He is speaking of Iran, but comparing Iran to Korea – but he’s made a slip of the tongue – because “imminent threat” is legalistic code talk for creating the excuse to attack without UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force. “Imminent threat” is the language they use in international law. Treaty law.
At Nuremberg, you know, they also tried the lawyers that found legalistic excuses for the nazi fascists in Germany. Just a thought…
Anyway, the significance is that good fella Rex, that good man ;) – he’s been listening to legalistic nazi lawyers telling how they can find a way to blast Korea and Iran, and get away with it.
This is probably an unrealistic plan, because of some practical problems that are evident. But the language Rex is using sounds to my sharp ears as though they really do plan to make significant kinetic events occur in those two states and of course they have a pattern of actions over decades, of doing more or less just that. So there’s no surprise in the plan, except that it probably will not result in a pleasant surprise… Pity!
It’s barking insane.
Pax
Iran and NK buck the NWO. This irritates the Globalists.
Countries that had NO CENTRAL BANKS
In 2000: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, NK, Iran, Syria.
In 2003: Sudan, Libya, Cuba, NK, Iran, Syria.
In 2017: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria
Both Iran and NK are unattractive targets for a land invasion owed to their topography. Thus, the NWO shows off stand off weapons only.
But both Iran and NK can strike back and damage the World economy with gusto. Besides its formidable conventional missile and hardened launch sites, Iran is a breakthrough nuclear state having also the delivery systems to hit hard at Saudi, Qatar, etc. Iran can make things rather difficult in Afghanistan. Same with NK and their neighbors to the South.
Trump has painted himself into a corner. He wants China to do his dirty work. The MSM may cheer Trumpismo when a few bombs and missiles are dropped from afar but they won’t cheer when body bags start arriving. The recent fiasco in Yemen due to death of just one Navy Seal member caused much soul searching and grief. Same thing just happened yesterday between bereaved parents of the IDF’s 2014 Gaza war and Israeli PM Netanyahu. When Russia cancelled the deconfliction channel with the USAF, Belgium immediately pulled back their air sorties against DAESH. The empire’s populace and politicians are scared of the death of their own as they don’t have a legitimate cause to be in these faraway lands.
It is perhaps worth re-visiting the histories of Empires. My impression is that Empires become weak due to internal “contradictions” often brought about by gradual change – like climate change or drought or resource depletion – and other times due to moral decay – this depends upon the nature of the economy of the particular historical empire. For Rome it is accepted that the problem was moral decay. For Russian Empire in 1917 ? Well there are experts here so I will not presume to say, but it sure was not either moral or resource nor drought, was it? The Persian, I believe, is attributed by Tacitus (?) to the introduction by the Greeks of pederasty to the upper classes… but you get the point.
But the point is that empires become weak. At that time they have, generally, internal political and economic problems, as well as difficulties with subject people and states. Thus, often, they make wars of conquest or aggression. (Comrade President has spoken of this – it is good to know!)
But the problem occurs when, or if, but generally it is “when” they lose a war – that then is seen by all to break free – and empires collapses into civil war and starvation. Salamis comes to mind very often these days…
Some might say, indeed, our Brother Trump and his junta have no choice. They must attack or be lost. And if they attack they will also be lost – probably.
It’s a sucker bet. “Beware the mark you cannot beat, the mark inside.” That was said by an expert, the father of the Beats… He was right.
another hunch noted so far as opportunities to lose – note that convoy of two Rus Corvette with oiler and tug are in Atlantic now http://tass.com/defense/942355 . So What. Well…
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Rex-Tillerson-Warns-Venezuela-Against-Silencing-Opposition-20170419-0042.html
Taken altogether some might guess as to the destination of that convoy. I can. So, after all the hard work, all the bribes, treason, blackmails – after all the money (!) those Russian ships just might foil the coup – again!
Not sporting old boy!
Doubtful in my opinion… The 2 warships set sail before the events in Venezuela. More certain is the probable dispatch of the AGI ship SSV 175 Viktor Leonov closer to Venezuela imho.