[HN Gopher] U.S. Naval Institute Fleet Tracker
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. Naval Institute Fleet Tracker
Author : stefankuehnel
Score : 60 points
Date : 2023-11-22 12:22 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.usni.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.usni.org)
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Interesting that they include the Polar Star. I assume it's not
| leading any sort of group and is sailing independently.
| WJW wrote:
| It does mention in the article that: USCGC
| Polar Star (WAGB-10) began its journey to toward Antarctica in
| support of its yearly trip to McMurdo Sound.
|
| So it's probably sailing alone _right now_ , but other (cargo)
| ships will join it later. See also the last paragraph of https:
| //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station#Contemporary_f....
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Oh thanks. I didn't even realize they're articles.
|
| It's quite cool to see the military utilized to support
| research purposes. Not that this is new, but it's a pretty
| decent way to get extra value out of necessary exercise.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Polar Star is Coast Guard. Coast Guard is technically armed
| service but they do search and rescue, and law enforcement.
| They are under Homeland Security.
| sillywalk wrote:
| Interestingly, I found this bit interesting (emphasis
| mine), I never knew they deployed much overseas, much
| less for that long.
|
| "The Coast Guard, which _has been conducting operations
| around the world for centuries now_ , is a branch of the
| U.S. military and can support military operations if
| called upon to do so. However, it has a unique legal
| status that also allows it to conduct law enforcement
| activities and it is situated within the Department of
| Homeland Security, rather than the Department of
| Defense."
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40360/u-s-coast-
| guard-...
| anovikov wrote:
| Which is the third CSG that's being sent to Israel coast?
| g-b-r wrote:
| Where did you hear about this third CSG?
| throw0101b wrote:
| Does this show the current location of the USS _Jimmy Carter_?
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter
|
| > _Seabed warfare has been brought into sharp focus by Russia's
| ongoing efforts to map undersea infrastructure. And by the
| September 2022 with the attack on the Nord Stream gas pipelines
| in the Baltic. There is no suggestion that the USS_ Jimmy Carter
| _was involved in the Nord Stream incident (it wasn't!). But the
| attack shows the relevance of these capabilities. Most seabed
| warfare however is closer to espionage than sabotage. And the
| American submarines excel._
|
| * https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/04/u-s-navy-to-get...
|
| * https://www.navalnews.com/tag/seabed-warfare/
| rtkwe wrote:
| No subs are on the map at all if you look at it. Secrecy is
| their main defense so giving even approximate locations is a no
| no.
| dzonga wrote:
| all those ships in japan / in the pacific.
|
| ready to strike china if need be.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Southeast asia has had US military presence for longer than
| communist or even democratic china has existed. Japan and the
| Philippines for example are still pretty much American
| possessions from a military, economic, and foreign policy
| perspective, despite the guise of self determination for the
| populace.
| Hayvok wrote:
| Now overlay all of the bases, airfields, and other assets
| throughout the Pacific. There are several islands that are
| effectively stationary aircraft carriers.
|
| In the event of any Pacific war with the Americans you would be
| staring down 8-10 super-carrier groups, another 8 smaller
| carriers and a dozen or so islands each equivalent to a super-
| carrier's power.
|
| Most nations would struggle to defeat a single carrier group.
| Imagine fighting twenty.
| paganel wrote:
| Why would China venture into the Pacific? That would bring no
| strategic benefits to them.
|
| More generally, I think that the US is preparing to fight the
| last big war that they've been involved in (meaning WW2),
| instead of preparing for the next one. Again, China won't
| venture towards Midway or Hawaii, actually, I think that
| Imperial Japan might have had a better chance had it decided
| to focus on the land war (mostly in China) instead of risking
| it all at Midway.
| nradov wrote:
| No one expects China to actually invade Midway or Hawaii.
| However, they do want to secure their sea lines of
| communication including Taiwan, the Paracel Islands, the
| Spratly Islands, and the Malacca Strait. Due to lack of
| natural resources and overpopulation they depend on imports
| of food, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and iron ore just to
| survive. Hypothetically if they were to invade Taiwan they
| might take the risk of conducting long-range strikes
| against US bases in the theater in order to degrade our
| ability to respond.
|
| Japan in 1941 had no chance to succeed long term by
| focusing on a land war in China because they were being cut
| off from access to crucial raw materials. To be clear I am
| not justifying their aggressive and genocidal military
| actions. Just pointing out that from that perspective their
| attacks on Midway and Hawaii made a certain amount of
| strategic sense and had at least a small chance of working.
| paganel wrote:
| > fertilizer
|
| They can get that via rail from Russia and Kazahstan with
| almost no issue, even from Belarus if Kazahstan says no.
| Yes, it will add some extra-costs but nothing that won't
| be financially manageable.
|
| > fossil fuels
|
| Basically just oil, which it will be very easy for them
| to replace in case of a war against the US by telling
| their (China's citizens) not to drive petrol cars
| anymore. Mission accomplished. It also helps that China
| is leading the EV industry and that it has a very
| extensive and intensive railway network in place, so if
| there is one big country that could make do without
| personal cars that would be China.
|
| > iron ore
|
| Russia to the rescue again, for example the largest world
| deposit of iron ore is located in Siberia [1]. Also, most
| probably the Chinese authorities will put all new civil
| construction on hold until the blockade/war would be over
| and they'll redirect all that iron ore to the military
| industry (for making artillery shells, tanks, stuff like
| that). Not to mention the fact that by that point
| Australia (a major US ally) would have already become
| close to broke (as their economy depends on selling to
| China lots of stuff taken from the ground).
|
| > imports of food
|
| I've read some piece in the Economist a couple of months
| ago where they were mentioning how come China has food
| reserves for at least 2 or 3 years, but, ignoring that,
| Russia will come to the rescue again (thanks to their
| chernozom).
|
| As per Japan in WW2, they could have lived off the land
| (i.e. off China) had they really got in and conquer it
| all. They had been already doing a similar thing in Korea
| for three or four decades by that point, so they had
| practice. The imported oil was basically needed for their
| Navy, so with no new Navy big campaigns in the works that
| wouldn't have been necessary.
|
| [1] https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/554788
| nradov wrote:
| You don't have a realistic understanding of the
| situation. Rail links are limited, and don't have the
| same capacity as ships. China has been trying to address
| that through the "Belt and Road" initiative but with
| limited progress so far.
|
| It's not so much the fertilizer itself that China needs
| to import, but rather the natural gas needed to
| manufacture fertilizer. Beyond natural gas, China is also
| a huge importer of coal for power, heating, and
| steelmaking. They have no realistic path to energy
| independence and will remain dependent on maritime
| imports for decades at least. Reducing petrol use won't
| allow them to keep their economy running or feed the
| populace.
|
| In a crisis, China could perhaps find alternative sources
| of food imports at very high costs. But that is not a
| rational approach to long term national survival.
|
| There was never any possibility for the Japanese empire
| in 1941 to live off the land in the territory they had
| conquered. They were already being cut off from crucial
| raw materials including oil and rubber. Without a secure
| supply of those their situation was simply untenable.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| One of the strange move by china is to go pacific. It is
| a land empire. Hence if you think through it and given
| there is actual war between Soviet Union and china, why
| not point upwards and get back Siberia. Or somehow
| effectively get that by letting Russia dig shit in
| Ukraine and get their material cheap.
|
| It is understandable to try to break the pacific ring but
| fighting a war on the sea ... even if it won, can it be
| sustainable? Is there any material in Pacific Ocean
| easily obtainable?
|
| For the M strait the pacific rim is really a different
| ball game. The whole strait is surrounded by countries
| which will not give up their coastline. The sea and land
| belt thing is mostly to bypass it?
|
| The whole move is wrong. I have spoken.
| notadev wrote:
| We also have a number of pre-positioned ships, forward-
| deployed supply ships just chilling in the Pacific, waiting
| for something to pop off.
| rexreed wrote:
| There are more ships in / around the Middle East and Persian
| Gulf, including 2 Carrier Strike groups (CSGs), the same number
| based in Japan, plus additional Amphibious Ready Groups, Fast
| Response Groups, and Landing support. That tends to support
| more action in the middle east region than against China / NK.
| pphysch wrote:
| They aren't there to strike anything. That would be disastrous
| for US forces.
|
| They are there to posture and prop up USA's image as the sole
| superpower, and to keep the security competition from
| deflating. Without this military show, people in East Asia
| would wake up one day and ask, wait, why do we care so much
| about what distant Washington thinks? Because the economic &
| cultural game has already been lost.
| maxglute wrote:
| It's really not that much, typically deployed 7th fleet CVN76,
| DESRON15 is like 10-20 ships depending on circumstance. They're
| grossly out gunned against entire PLA complex located in
| theatre, US posture in region is a deterrence force, not a
| strike force. US appears to have a "lot" in Yokosuka - that's
| the propaganda behind "presence" and fleet tracker, but
| functionally, not really.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| this projection has the large advantage of familiarity, but for
| naval assets I prefer Spilhaus, eg
| https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-P...
| stn8188 wrote:
| Ah I think this year marks two decades since the Coast Guard's
| Patrol Forces Southwest Asia (PATFORSWA) started operating in the
| Persian Gulf. Interesting to see it on a fleet tracker, as it's
| basically a permanent fixture at this point. They even have been
| replacing the old Island Class patrol boats with a brand new
| class. I'm not sure if I'm misremembering but I seem to recall
| hearing a plan of the Coast Guard getting out of there within
| about a year of my time ('09).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-22 23:02 UTC)