US sends small Armada to South China sea

The US has made it clear that it will deploy 70 per cent of its navy to the Asia-Pacific region under its strategy of pivoting to Asia. The US has stepped up military moves with its alliances and its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Isn't this militarization?

Business Insider

Interesting development, seems we are meddling in every front possible, what's new.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

a reply to lil Kim-boy's threat of "readying" NK's "nuclear" weapons?

"Small armada" is stretching it. There's a single Carrier Strike Group in the area, which is not at all unusual. If we see a couple more, then we might have something.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Business Insider

Interesting development, seems we are meddling in every front possible, what's new.

how about 'US sends assets to troubled area to re-assure allies (Australia, South Korea, Japan) as Kim Jong Whatever rattles his nukey-boom-boom sabre again'.

originally posted by: schuyler
"Small armada" is stretching it. There's a single Carrier Strike Group in the area, which is not at all unusual. If we see a couple more, then we might have something.

As quoted in the op, 70% of the US Navy is way more than one strike group!

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: schuyler
"Small armada" is stretching it. There's a single Carrier Strike Group in the area, which is not at all unusual. If we see a couple more, then we might have something.

As quoted in the op, 70% of the US Navy is way more than one strike group!

The person quoted in the OP is a member of the Chinese legislature. I see nowhere else where the US has 'made this clear'.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: schuyler
"Small armada" is stretching it. There's a single Carrier Strike Group in the area, which is not at all unusual. If we see a couple more, then we might have something.

As quoted in the op, 70% of the US Navy is way more than one strike group!

The person quoted in the OP is a member of the Chinese legislature. I see nowhere else where the US has 'made this clear'.

Ya I looked around as well, and couldn't find anything on it.

Because 70% be like 7 carrier battle groups wouldn't it?

And that would be idiotic to place that much all in one area.

a reply to: schuyler

I understand what you mean, but an Armada is simply a group of armed vessels which a carrier strike group is.

We usually imagine the word to mean a large naval force, but even given that a carrier plus all it's supporting vessels is a pretty big group of death waiting to happen.

a reply to: Sargeras

Seventy percent of the Navy isn't available all at once, even if they were moving that much of the fleet over to the Pacific.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

%70 of the US navy is no joke. The cost to move and operate those vessels across the world is no small matter either. The US Taking a very serious stance here, and it's a little unnerving to be honest.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey Zaph, thanks for the reality check. Do you think perhaps they mean 70% of the available fleet? Or is this just an article based on rumor that will ultimately fizzle away with us seeing none of the supposed action.

a reply to: Aeshma

I suspect it's them trying to make it look like their only reacting to the Navy pushing into the area, so they're using a big number.

originally posted by: schuyler
"Small armada" is stretching it. There's a single Carrier Strike Group in the area, which is not at all unusual. If we see a couple more, then we might have something.

A single carrier strike group in 2016 carries more fire power than the Pacific Fleet in WW2.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I also happened to note in re-reading the article, the mention of 70% of the fleet comes from a statement out of China not the US.

a reply to: Nickn3

Almost all of which is delivered via non-stealthy aircraft requiring major support from land bases. Number wise, it's impressive as hell, realistically, not so much.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: schuyler
"Small armada" is stretching it. There's a single Carrier Strike Group in the area, which is not at all unusual. If we see a couple more, then we might have something.

As quoted in the op, 70% of the US Navy is way more than one strike group!

You misread it. 70% of the US Navy is not in the China Sea. The strategic goal of the US to have 70% of its Naval assets in the Pacific, almost all of which are parked at San Diego, Bremerton, and Hawaii. There are some bits and pieces in places like Guam, and a single Carrier Strike Group is based in Japan.

Once again: The US has a SINGLE Carrier Strike Group in the area.

That "Strike Group" is composed on ONE Nimitz Class aircraft carrier and its usual bevy of support ships: A handful of destroyers, a couple of cruisers, a submarine or two, and a fast attack supply ship. As happens with EVERY Strike Group, support ships come and go from and to the group, mostly for command and control purposes. In this case there is a Japanese warship cruising alongside. A typical Strike Group has from 7-12 ships at any one time.

A whole lot LESS than "70% of the US Navy."

originally posted by: Nickn3

originally posted by: schuyler
"Small armada" is stretching it. There's a single Carrier Strike Group in the area, which is not at all unusual. If we see a couple more, then we might have something.

A single carrier strike group in 2016 carries more fire power than the Pacific Fleet in WW2.

Yes. I'm aware of that. In fact, a single CVN carries more firepower than about 90% of the world's air forces TODAY.

a reply to: FamCore

I doubt that, more for China than anything would be my guess.

a reply to: Aeshma

I don't remember them giving a solid number, but quite a few subs and non-carrier surface ships were involved as well as aircraft.

yep a 12 ship armada is legal in my book....considering the punch it packs its downright in your face gunboat diplomacy in action....(well, it worked for the British a while back.)...might not sit well with a nuclear armed peoples republic though.....
You don't think that the US will spark a confrontation where Taiwan will slip the nuclear Knife in Chinas side whilst she is facing a bit southward, and preoccupied....??
I imagine Taiwan may be tempted someday to make a move on a comeback under the right inducements....

To the best of my knowledge, the US Pacific Fleet has always been larger than the Atlantic Fleet. Even during my service days during the Cold War. This is mainly because area it is required to cover is so much larger than the Atlantic. Not only is the Pacific ocean much larger, but the Pacific fleet is responsible for the Indian Ocean and the Gulf as well. The Atlantic fleet also has many European allies that work closely with and reinforce it's numbers. Not so much in the Pacific.

Much more territory and less allied forces equals many more ships required for an equal amount of coverage.

And I can't remember there EVER being a time when there wasn't at least one CBG assigned to the Eastern Pacific. (Except possibly when the assigned forces are conducting a relieving exercise.)

But it never hurts to cry "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" to the international press.