No more CQs?

[sevenhelmet]

In our military, we have people chafing about the words we use to describe the single most dangerous adversary we face. I feel great about our future.

Unfortunately, I don't see our military leaders doing much more than paying lip service to the Chinese threat. A few years ago, the party line was all about "shifting focus to China", yet all we see are carriers extending indefinitely in the Middle East, because "deterrence".

It's hard to see how the presence of a carrier in the Arabian Sea is moving the needle on the nebulous goal of "deterrence", and even harder to see how we are "focusing on China", but what do I know? I'm just a guy who got out after DH, while my brothers in arms continue to withstand 9-10 month deployments, still in the ME.

Sure seems like we could be using our high value, high-end resources more effectively, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Jim123]

 

[Hair Warrior]

Unfortunately, I don't see our military leaders doing much more than paying lip service to the Chinese threat. A few years ago, the party line was all about "shifting focus to China", yet all we see are carriers extending indefinitely in the Middle East, because "deterrence".

It's hard to see how the presence of a carrier in the Arabian Sea is moving the needle on the nebulous goal of "deterrence", and even harder to see how we are "focusing on China", but what do I know? I'm just a guy who got out after DH, while my brothers in arms continue to withstand 9-10 month deployments, still in the ME.

Sure seems like we could be using our high value, high-end resources more effectively, that's all I'm saying.

Somewhere I read (either AW or RealClearDefense) an idea to base the new INDOPACOM Fleet in Australia. That to me is an outstanding idea, and would actually go a long way to reshaping our presence in-theater. C7F in Japan, C3F in San Diego, and C1F in Australia.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/departing-navy-secretary-pushes-for-new-pacific-fleet-vs-china/
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/17/se...-new-u-s-1st-fleet-near-indian-pacific-oceans

Darwin makes a ton of geographic sense to the AO, but the city is only 150k population - and any major fleet concentration area will need logistics, services, housing, and local national service personnel (e.g. engineering, IT, shipbuilding, etc.) to make it robust. Brisbane (2M pop) is the closest to Hawaii geographically, but at that point you might as well put it in Sydney, right? Decisions, decisions...

 

[squorch2]

Folks love their cheap Chinese stuff and do not give two shits about Taiwan or the Spratlys.

using “CHICOM” or “CCP” unironically is a shibboleth, identifying that person as 1) Q-adjacent 2) unserious about national security

 

[BigRed389]

Somewhere I read (either AW or RealClearDefense) an idea to base the new INDOPACOM Fleet in Australia. That to me is an outstanding idea, and would actually go a long way to reshaping our presence in-theater. C7F in Japan, C3F in San Diego, and C1F in Australia.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/departing-navy-secretary-pushes-for-new-pacific-fleet-vs-china/
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/17/se...-new-u-s-1st-fleet-near-indian-pacific-oceans

Darwin makes a ton of geographic sense to the AO, but the city is only 150k population - and any major fleet concentration area will need logistics, services, housing, and local national service personnel (e.g. engineering, IT, shipbuilding, etc.) to make it robust. Brisbane (2M pop) is the closest to Hawaii geographically, but at that point you might as well put it in Sydney, right? Decisions, decisions...

There are a lot of pros and cons to any location in AUS. None of them are perfect, either from a sailor QOL perspective, Fleet costs, or support infrastructure. Problem gets even harder if this Fleet is expected to do what C7F does and actually own forward deployed/based forces. Anywhere we end up is going to require significant investment from us (or AUS....but good luck with that) to make it suitable for us.

 

[jollygreen07]

Folks love their cheap Chinese stuff and do not give two shits about Taiwan or the Spratlys.

using “CHICOM” or “CCP” unironically is a shibboleth, identifying that person as 1) Q-adjacent 2) unserious about national security

Interesting. Thanks for adding Shibboleth to my vocabulary, by the way. Hadn’t heard that one before.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Interesting. Thanks for adding Shibboleth to my vocabulary, by the way. Hadn’t heard that one before.

 

[Hair Warrior]

using “CHICOM” or “CCP” unironically is a shibboleth, identifying that person as 1) Q-adjacent 2) unserious about national security

Isn’t calling something or someone “Q-adjacent” also a shibboleth?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Isn’t calling something or someone “Q-adjacent” also a shibboleth?

Easy. He already made his indefensible drive-by. He won’t be back, as usual.

 

[taxi1]

When I saw Jed saying he was going to ask him to say “shibboleth” I thought we were going to have a moment like this.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Folks love their cheap Chinese stuff and do not give two shits about Taiwan or the Spratlys.

using “CHICOM” or “CCP” unironically is a shibboleth, identifying that person as 1) Q-adjacent 2) unserious about national security

Somewhere there is a village missing it's idiot, but ecstatic he's missing.

 

[Hair Warrior]

The Chinese regime are most certainly not Communists. They are totalitarian despotic hyper-capitalists. They drive more McLarens and Rolls Royces than we do - but in order to get one over there, you have to suck up to the regime and do their bidding.

 

[Brett327]

The Chinese regime are most certainly not Communists. They are totalitarian despotic hyper-capitalists. They drive more McLarens and Rolls Royces than we do - but in order to get one over there, you have to suck up to the regime and do their bidding.

So, CHYCAPS then? This could be huge if we can get Limbaugh to buy in.

 

[jmcquate]

They are totalitarian despotic hyper-capitalists.

You know, there is a word for that.

 

[Hair Warrior]

You know, there is a word for that.

Shibboleth?