
U.S. Sends China Signal with F-35-Laden Warship in Disputed Sea - jonbaer
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/u-s-sends-china-signal-with-f-35-laden-warship-in-disputed-sea
======
dsfyu404ed
The title implies some geopolitical motive that is not supported by the
article. It must be a slow news day.

>an amphibious assault ship outfitted last year with F-35B jets

I.e. not a carrier group which is what most people think of when they hear
"F-35-laden warship"

>joined the annual Exercise Balikatan with the Philippines this month.

This is an annual exercise, not an escalation of some sort, doesn't get any
clearer than that.

>The USS Wasp didn’t pass within 25 nautical miles of the shoal, according to
a U.S. defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The figure
suggests that the ship wasn’t conducting a so-called freedom of navigation
operation, a practice criticized by China that the U.S. uses to assert
international sailing rights within 12 nautical miles of disputed features.

Basically they're just in the neighborhood, not trying to stir up trouble.

>The moves come as officials in Manila escalate protests over...

There's always something else going on at any given time.

~~~
patentatt
I too was duped into assuming the headline implied a carrier group. But then I
looked up the stats for the USS Wasp and was surprised to find out that it can
carry up to 20 F-35s (in addition to a wide array of other VTOL aircraft) and
it pretty much looks like a little aircraft carrier. And it can carry 1600
Marines. I agree with your assessment, just was surprised to learn that
“amphibious assault ships” are formidable weapons platforms.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Is the F35C even ready yet? It was my impression that carrier groups still
primarily flew F18s.

~~~
nradov
Amphibious ships like the USS Wasp can only operate the F-35B variant, which
has been operational for several years.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Yes, which is why I think “marine” pops into my mind when ships with F35s are
mentioned, not navy carriers.

------
dj_gitmo
The message of the F35 is that the US is committed to Military keynesianism.

------
swarnie_
If the article is to be believed why does the USA feel the need to police
waters 6,600 miles from its mainland. Surely their claim to this area is
lesser when compared to Chain, Japan, Tiawan ect....

~~~
culturestate
_Note: I 'm not making a political argument either way here, just a quick
aside about the development of the world over the last 70 years._

Since the end of WW2 the U.S. has become, for better or worse, the world's
stabilizing agent. Of course there are peaks and valleys - argue all you want
about American intervention in the Middle East or South America - but broadly
speaking world governments expect America to take care of business.

Huge swaths of modern society depend on the U.S. being a (relatively) honest
broker and protector of "peace" \- two notable examples of which, in fact, are
Japan and Taiwan. The latter _very_ arguably remains independent today thanks
to American protection. If China chose to claim exclusive rights to the South
China Sea tomorrow, it's unlikely that Japan or Taiwan or Vietnam or any
coalition of coastal nations together - without American or pan-European
support - could push back successfully.

All of this is shifting, of course, as nationalist movements gain momentum and
confidence in America wanes but for the moment (and the immediate future),
this is the world we live in.

~~~
xkcd-sucks
It's also worth remembering that USA contributed to postwar reconstruction
under informal, and sometimes formal, agreements that the nations would
outsource their military operations. Japan does not have a "true" military to
this day, and Taiwan never developed or acquired nuclear weapons. This is at
the request of USA, paid for in protection.

~~~
CapricornNoble
That whole perception of Japan not having a military is just a
technicality.....their "Maritime Self-Defense Force" is easily the 3rd largest
and most powerful navy in the Pacific (after the US and China).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-
Defense_Force_ships)

The "Air Self-Defense Force" has more combat jets that the UK's Royal Air
Force, and almost as many as the mighty Israeli Air Force. The Japanese are
just postured exclusively for national defense and territorial
integrity....which many people don't realize includes the ability of executing
credible counter-offensives to liberate lost territory. I would argue that
until the past ~5-10 years or so, the Chinese stood no chance in a big fight
out here in the First Island Chain. The qualitative AND quantitative
differences between the Chinese and Japanese hardware were just that large.

------
simonblack
It only sends a 'signal' if you don't believe that aircraft-carrying ships are
as obsolete as the gun-carrying ships they displaced nearly a century ago.

Aircraft-carrying ships are so passé in today's world of missile-carrying
ships.

