China sending warship to Syrian coast

Hot Air ^ | September 8, 2013 | Jazz Shaw

[jttpwalsh]

Please consider, only a few years ago, the idea of China sending a naval vessel as far away from home, as The Med, was unthinkable. I doubt China is looking for a naval battle vs. USN here, but since I have been paying attention to their navy (15 years), they have made many advancements, one step at a time. I think this is just one more stepping stone on their road to a goal of supremacy. Certainly, we can head them off, if we choose too, but in another 15 years, will we have the will? Thank you.

[stevie_d_64]

While there is a way to integrate the information from AWACS to the destroyers (escorts) combat systems these days, from what I recall, our Navy has the AEGIS system that tracks high volumes of inbounds that can be engaged with conventional shipboard defensive systems...

The number is insignificant unless the time to intercept with those defensive systems is truncated (lessened)...

Since it is just surface ships (i.e.: Burke class DDG’s) there are no HVT (High Value Targets) for them to screen except themselves, so the advantage would initially be with the defenders in this case...Once any engagement is joined, then it becomes a question of the CO’s on the scene to defend their commands with established ROE’s (Rules of Engagement) and not necessarily needing NCA (National Command Authority, the President’s) approval to defend your command at that point...

At least that is what I can remember being the way things were done back in the day...

It would be a bad day for everyone if the Russians and ChiComs got into a shooting match with us at this particular juncture...

I do not believe that is what they want...

I’m surprised, but am encouraged that the latest move is Russia is compelling the Syrian government to allow their chemical weapon stockpile to be put under international control, and possibly be removed from the country...

That I believe would be a good move for everyone involved...

Just remember, the reason Obama and his ilk are pushing for the military option is to bolster the chances of the democrats to look and sound tough on the international scene, and thus increase their chances to win the 2014 mid-term elections...NOTHING ELSE MATTERS...That IS what this is all about...

Technically, tactically, I believe our forces on scene are prefectly capable of doing what is asked of them...

Whether it is right for them to be utilized in this manner, that’ll be up to history to analyze and decide...

For now I believe this administration is heading down the worng path...For ALL the wrong reasons, and it is pride that is getting in the way of maturity and peaceful resolution to this issue...

But what should we expect different from them???

[xone]

However, even if one of those Ohio class boats launches a mere one-quarter of its missiles, then WW-III is on ...

If Tomahawks fly, they'll likely be from the destroyers on station, welcome to WWIII because if 0 attacks, they'll be at least 40 of them. Lybia consumed 120+ and NATO was bombing as well. We aren't bombing although I wouldn't put it past him to use B-2s at least once.

If the 'small' strike envisioned by the idiots in the White House is going to help the Al Qaeda, it would have to be focused on the Syrian AF. Since we have been assured Assad will still be eating Cheerios after this, it won't be a decapitation strike, because 0 would never lie to America.

At any rate there are 14 airfields still controlled by Assad although two are near Tartus and you'd think you would avoid those when you don't have a human in the loop after launch. 5 of the airfields aren't near Damascus and probably have the AC that are having an effect on Al Qaeda. That means about 60 AC to deal with, around 12/base. You won't get them all since they know we might be coming but you'll probably get a few along with their supply chain.

The alternative is to attack one base but that means restricting the routing, something I hope the pros would avoid.