The “kinetic strike”, announced by Trump in a social media post that included a video of the attack, following his wide-ranging comments Sunday in which he did not rule out US strikes on mainland Venezuela or a US operation to remove Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro from power.

“The Strike resulted in 3 male terrorists killed in action”, Trump posted. A similar attack on 3 September resulted in 11 casualties, who the US accused of being members of a drug transporting crew.

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2732028-us-destroys-second-venezuelan-boat-update

The post US destroys second Venezuelan boat: Update first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

While Beijing may like to seize Taiwan by any means, it may not actually think the costs of doing so are worth it.

Are the United States and China truly on the brink of war over Taiwan? Or could one simply observe that there appears to be a never-ending measure of escalation with verbal exchanges, military drills and exercises, and geopolitical posturing?

A 2005 Chinese Anti-Secession law gives the Chinese government authority to use force to reunify with Taiwan should the “breakaway” province formally declare its independence. Given that the island of Taiwan is, at the moment, basically autonomous and independent from China, there is little value in actually declaring independence.

Yet the Chinese military has been flying fighter jets over the Western coastline of the island of Taiwan, conducting amphibious assault warfare preparations and sending its new carriers quite close to the area. All of this is against the backdrop of Chinese-government-backed newspapers writing visibly about war-readiness to take over Taiwan.

Is there a realistic possibility that China could succeed in any takeover of Taiwan? Maybe, in part due to a combination of operational speed and the prospect of U.S. restraint. Could China be successful in an attempt to quickly overwhelm Taiwanese defenses before U.S. forces could respond? If that happened, could Beijing, therefore, manage to secure the island before a large counterattack was possible? This seems unlikely, given the sustained U.S. presence in the region and forward positioning of strike assets nearby.

Fighter jets, bombers, nearby carrier strike groups, along with U.S. provided long-range defensive weapons on the island of Taiwan make it likely that any invasion might be repelled or prolonged enough to enable U.S intervention. Also, while Taiwan is not far from the Chinese mainland, large numbers of U.S. surveillance assets, not to mention satellites, keep a constant bird-eye watch upon Chinese maneuvers. Any war preparations, large-scale force deployments or initial transit toward Taiwan would likely be seen immediately by U.S. surveillance. There could always be a surprise attack with something like a long-range missile, but it seems unlikely that any kind of large-scale invasion could succeed before the United States would have a chance to intervene. This reality likely dashes a potential Chinese hope that it might be able to quickly secure Taiwan and lead the United States to hold back and basically allow Beijing to avoid a catastrophic full-scale war.

Meanwhile, the United States has in a comparable way, massively up-ticked its own exercises in the region with a dramatic increase in drone surveillance missions, bomber patrols, and Carrier Strike Group exercises. America has also carried out dual-carrier power projection warfare preparation operations in the vicinity of Taiwan. In addition, the U.S. Navy has for years conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations throughout disputed regions of the South China Sea to, at least in part, challenged China’s provocative territorial claims and phony island-building in the area. These included pointed and quite deliberate efforts to sail within the so-called disputed twelve-mile territorial boundary near islands erroneously claimed by China.

While there has been serious concern about miscalculations, misunderstanding and possible unintended military confrontations or even an exchange of fire, neither side is likely to give a “go-ahead” for any kind of first strike. U.S. and Chinese ships have sailed quite close to one another, U.S. bomber patrols have specifically flown quite close to being directly overhead Chinese targets and Chinese fighters have actually flown “over” coastal areas along the Taiwanese border.

However, there seems to be a never-ending series of provocations and warnings, including bold statements from the Chinese that they are specifically well-positioned to destroy what their government calls “foreign interventions” into a possible conflict with Taiwan. Meanwhile, the risks and potential costs of war with the United States may simply be too high for China to actually initiative a military offensive against Taiwan. Conversely, while the United States clearly wants to challenge Chinese provocations and formally “deter” China from taking any kind of aggressive action, it seems clear that America is by no means likely to launch a first strike upon Chinese forces.

Does this make all of the Chinese provocations, war preparations, and public comments about its power projections somewhat useless and potentially even irrelevant? The answer may be yes.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters

The post Would China Really Invade Taiwan? Maybe, But the Costs Would Be Nuts first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The two nations are increasing their deployments to the region, raising concerns that a clash is becoming more likely.

Here’s What You Need To Remember: In terms of pure statistics, increasing the number of patrols, surveillance operations and attack drills near one another simply raises the probability of some kind of hostile encounter. The big question is this: would either major power exercise the much-needed restraint necessary to stop a war in the event of small engagement?

Could a small “clash,” incident, or brief exchange of fire between American and Chinese forces in the South China Sea quickly lead to a dangerous “all-out war?”

Many experts, observers and officials seem to share the concern, given the rapid escalation of hostility between the two major superpowers.

Speaking to this topic, the Chinese-government backed Global Times heated up the rhetoric a bit when stating, “if Washington launches military provocations to challenge the bottom line of China’s national security and sovereignty, China will make immediate and effective retaliations.”

While this may, in some respects, seem like somewhat of an obvious statement, it does introduce the prospect of a major war, perhaps beginning with only a small incident.

“The possibility of small and medium-sized clashes, which could involve ship collisions and occasional firing incidents, is rising,” the Global Times writes.

How could a small clash occur? The paper suggests the highly unlikely possibility that the U.S. might attack some of China’s claimed “phony island” territory in the South China Sea. While unlikely, Chinese moves to place weapons in sensitive areas of the South China Sea island chain might make that kind of consideration somewhat realistic, given the proximity of the threat they would introduce.

However, some kind of intercept, false move or misinterpreted training exercise could easily spark some kind of exchange of fire. Both the America and China have been massively ratcheting up surveillance plane operations, aircraft carrier attack drills, training operations and bomber patrols in close proximity to one another. This increases the likelihood of actions being misunderstood or intentions being misread.

Perhaps Chinese fighter jets and surveillance drones operating near or over Taiwan might appear to be closing in for an attack, therefore prompting ground commanders to fire air defenses? Where is the boundary between peaceful training operations, harmless patrols and severe military provocation? Should that line be tenuous in any way, major catastrophic war could erupt.

On the flip side, what if a U.S. Navy destroyer conducts a Freedom of Navigation exercise in the South China Sea and sails within the twelve-mile territorial boundary of island areas claimed by China and China fires missiles at the U.S. ship? If the shots fired are even warning shots, they could lead to disproportionate retaliation.

In terms of pure statistics, increasing the number of patrols, surveillance operations and attack drills near one another simply raises the probability of some kind of hostile encounter. The big question is this: would either major power exercise the much-needed restraint necessary to stop a war in the event of small engagement? One would think the price of major warfare would simply be far too high for both countries, but that does not mean it could not happen.

Kris Osborn is the new Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This article first appeared earlier this year,

Image: Reuters

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/south-china-sea-big-enough-both-china-and-america-167994

The post The two nations are increasing their deployments to the region, raising concerns that a clash is becoming more likely. first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Iran’s refurbished mockup aircraft carrier, used previously as a simulated U.S. target during a February 2015 Iranian naval war games exercise, is seen at its homeport of Bandar Abbas, Iran February 15, 2020  (photo credit: MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

Iran has a giant fake aircraft carrier that it has used over the years to practice with during naval drills to show off that it can attack US carriers. Now the lumbering model boat is on the move, satellite photos show.

The US usually has at least one aircraft carrier somewhere near the Persian Gulf. Iran often harassed US naval ships in the Persian Gulf using fast boats of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In April, President Donald Trump said the US would sink Iranian boats that harass American warships.

The aircraft carrier is usually docked near the Port of Bandar Abbas. In recent days there was a mysterious explosive noise heard in Qeshm Island, just offshore. In addition, the oil tanker Gulf Sky, which is at the center of an international dispute amid accusations that an IRGC front company bought it, is also anchored off the island, after being allegedly hijacked from the coast of the UAE on July 6.

Iran’s refurbished mockup aircraft carrier is seen towed by a tugboat near Bandar Abbas, Iran July 25, 2020 (Photo Credit: Maxar Technologies/via REUTERS)

A Maxar Technologies satellite image located the Iranian fake US carrier offshore from Bandar Abbas and now some 50 km. southeast of where it was before. It is estimated to be 200 meters long and 50 meters wide, some 50%-70% the size of a real aircraft carrier, depending on how you estimate its overall size or displacement.

It is thus not just a floating piece of wood, but a large lumbering beast of a ship – a potential danger to international shipping and one more of Iran’s bizarre attempts to intimidate the international community. Iran has been accused of mining six ships in May and June 2019 and also shot down a US drone over the Gulf of Oman in 2019.

Christoph Koettl@ckoettl

Here’s a close up of the mock aircraft carrier earlier this year in Bandar Abbas. Via @Maxar. #Iran

Christoph Koettl@ckoettl

THE SHIP has at least 16 fake airplanes on its carrier deck. It was being towed by a boat, and another Iranian fast boat was seen nearby. The carrier, one of the Iranian navy’s largest ships, was blown up by Iran in 2015 and then repaired. Iran’s navy is otherwise relatively small and no match for the US Navy. One US naval officer quipped last year that the US could destroy the Iranian navy in an afternoon if it wanted to.

At the moment, it appears that the USS Eisenhower, which was off the Persian Gulf earlier this month, is now in the Mediterranean Sea for a drill with the Hellenic Navy. Between July 14 and 20 it made its way from near Oman toward the Red Sea and Suez Canal.

The USS Nimitz has been working recently with the Indian Navy. With the Eisenhower and the USS San Jacinto in the Mediterranean, the Nimitz has now moved to take up station with the Fifth Fleet as part of the need to sustain a carrier strike group presence in the Middle East, joining the fleet on July 24.

The Nimitz brings with her nine squadrons of the Carrier Air Wing and a destroyer squadron with the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton and Arliegh-Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Sterett and USS Ralph Johnson, all under the command of Rear Adm. Jim Kirk. A native of Pennsylvania, he took up command of Carrier Strike Group 11 in May.

Kirk shares a name with the fictional television and movie character Admiral James Tiberius Kirk of Star Trek fame. The real-life Admiral Jim Kirk and his carrier group will now help secure around 2.5 million square miles of water, according to the US Navy. According to a 2013 Guardian profile, Kirk does not take offensive to comparisons with his fictional media counterpart.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/irans-bizarre-giant-fake-us-carrier-towed-to-straits-of-hormuz-636457

The post Iran’s bizarre, giant fake US aircraft carrier towed to Straits of Hormuz first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

For the second time in three weeks, U.S. Southern Command has sent a Navy warship through waters off the coast of Venezuela, the combatant command said Wednesday.

The guided-missile destroyer Pinckney steamed through waters off the South American country’s coast to challenge Caracas’ “excessive maritime claims in international waters.”

Such freedom of navigation operations, or FONOPs, occur regularly in the South China Sea, where the U.S. military regularly contests Beijing’s territorial claims, but several such operations have also taken place off Venezuela this year.

A SOUTHCOM release announcing the Pinckney FONOP decried “the illegitimate Maduro regime” of the country’s authoritarian president, Nicolas Maduro, and alleges that his government “improperly claims” waters that lie three miles outside of Venezuela’s 12-nautical-mile sea territory.

Pinckney is operating in the Caribbean Sea with other Navy and Coast Guard vessels on a counter-narcotics mission.

“We will exercise our lawful right to freely navigate international waters without acquiescing to unlawful claims,” SOUTHCOM’s commander, Adm. Craig Faller, said in a statement. “The guaranteed rights of nations to access, transit, and navigate international waters is not subject to impositions or restrictions that blatantly violate international law.”

Last month, the warship Nitze conducted a FONOP off Venezuela.

Nitze’s FONOP followed a similar operation in January by the littoral combat ship Detroit.

The United States has joined nearly 60 other countries in backing Venezuela’s opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, as the country’s legitimate ruler, rather than the dictatorial Maduro, who is accused of illegitimately winning a 2018 election that banned other opponents and driving his oil-rich country into financial ruin.

About Geoff Ziezulewicz

Geoff is a senior staff reporter for Military Times, focusing on the Navy. He covered Iraq and Afghanistan extensively and was most recently a reporter at the Chicago Tribune. He welcomes any and all kinds of tips at geoffz@militarytimes.com.

Source: https://www.navytimes.com/news/2020/07/15/destroyer-pinckney-challenges-venezuelas-maritime-territorial-claims/

The post Destroyer Pinckney challenges Venezuela’s maritime territorial claims first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

As tensions remain high between Iran and the US, the Islamic Republic appears to have constructed a new mock-up of an aircraft carrier off its southern coast for potential live-fire drills, The Associated Press reported on Tuesday.

The faux foe, seen in satellite photographs obtained by AP, resembles the Nimitz-class carriers that the US Navy routinely sails into the Persian Gulf from the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway where 20% of all the world’s oil passes through.

While not yet acknowledged by Iranian officials, the replica’s appearance in the port city of Bandar Abbas suggests Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard is preparing an encore of a similar mock-sinking it conducted in 2015.

It also comes as Iran announced Tuesday it will execute a man it accused of sharing details on the movements of the Guard’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani, whom the US eliminated in a January drone strike in Baghdad.

The move follows continued tensions between the US and Iran. The US Navy recently issued a warning to mariners in the Gulf to stay 100 meters away from US warships or risk being “interpreted as a threat and subject to lawful defensive measures”.

While no mention was made of Iran in the notice, it follows US President Donald Trump’s threat last month to fire on any Iranian ships that harass Navy vessels.

Trump’s warning followed a tense encounter between US and Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf.

The US military said at the time that 11 Revolutionary Guards naval vessels from the Guards navy came close to US Navy and coast guard ships in the Gulf, calling the moves “dangerous and provocative”.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard acknowledged that the incident had taken place, but also claimed that it was American forces who sparked the incident.

The replica built by Iran carries 16 mock-ups of fighter jets on its deck, according to satellite photos taken by Maxar Technologies. The vessel appears to be some 200 meters (650 feet) long and 50 meters (160 feet) wide. A real Nimitz is over 300 meters (980 feet) long and 75 meters (245 feet) wide.

The fake carrier sits just a short distance away from the parking lot in which the Guard unveiled over 100 new speedboats in May, the kind it routinely employs in tense encounters between Iranian sailors and the US Navy. Those boats carry both mounted machine guns and missiles.

The US Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, which patrols Mideast waters, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/281623

The post Iran preparing for confrontation with US? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Read more: Military and defense analyzes, comments, opinions, and rating – Defweek.com

Read more: Submarine “Warsaw” and Club-S Cruise Missiles Might be Security Threat for Europe

According to him, due to the deployment of more advanced and quieter Russian submarines, the US Navy no longer considers the Atlantic as a zone of its “undeniable” domination. He added that the enemy began to use military equipment with “more deadly weapon systems.”

“Our ships can no longer expect to be in a safe haven on the east coast or at least be able to cross the Atlantic unhindered to operate elsewhere,” Lewis said at a meeting of the US Naval Institute and Center for Strategic and International Studies.

According to him, the new reality is that as soon as the sailors leave Norfolk, where the main naval base of the Atlantic fleet of the US Navy is located, they will operate in an insecure zone.

Vice Admiral noted that submarines of the Russian fleet patrol the Atlantic Ocean “at any given time.” He noted that the activity of submarines has increased significantly in recent years. At the same time, the military did not provide any specific data regarding the deployment of Russian military equipment near the coast of the United States.

Read more: Russia Is Starting a Project on 5th-Generation Submarine Production

Lewis added that Moscow’s activity is not limited to submarines. He recalled that in December last year, the Pentagon actively monitored the movement of the reconnaissance ship Viktor Leonov off the US coast. According to him, his maneuvers caused “some commotion” among the military. The author of the article noted that there was no evidence from the coast guard of this incident.

According to Vice Admiral, in this regard, the preparation of warships and submarines of the US Navy for operations is becoming more and more difficult.

BulgarianMilitary.com
Editorial team
Source: The Drive, RIA Novosti

Source: https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/02/06/russians-submarines-are-off-the-coast-of-usa-admiral-andrew-lewis-complaints/

The post Russians submarines are off the coast of USA, admiral Andrew Lewis complaints first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Key point: Like the Soviet Union, Russia knows that aircraft carriers are force multipliers for the U.S. military.

In the event of World War II, the Soviet Union planned to go after the U.S. Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers in a big way. The carriers were a flexible and powerful weapon that could operate at the peripheries of Soviet power, doing everything from supporting land operations to launching nuclear strikes. The Soviet Navy and Air Force
built battlecruisers, cruisers, submarines and bombers armed with formidable anti-ship missiles to destroy these America’s carriers and ensure victory in Western Europe.

During the Cold War, the United States Navy maintained a large and robust carrier fleet. In 1984 it operated thirteen carriers, a mix of conventional and nuclear-powered ships with air wings upwards of 85 aircraft. The carrier of 1984 fielded a diverse air wing, including the F-14 Tomcat fleet interceptor, F/A-18 Hornet multirole fighter, A-6 Intruder bomber, A-7 Corsair attack aircraft, and a variety of anti-submarine and support planes.

One of the missions the Soviets feared the most was a multi-carrier surge into the Norwegian Sea, where they could threaten Soviet air and naval bases. From there carriers could stage air raids against military targets across the northwestern USSR, hampering the ability of Soviet forces to dominate the North Atlantic and beyond. Alternately they could attack Soviet ballistic missiles submarines operating in the so-called “bastion” in the Barents Sea. Soviet missile submarines, concentrated near the homeland for protection, would be hunted down and destroyed.

But perhaps the gravest threat from Moscow’s perspective were the nuclear weapons regularly stationed on U.S. carriers. The prospect of one or more enemy aircraft carriers operating off the coast of the USSR, constantly on the move and each with up to ten nuclear bombers on her flight deck was a serious concern to the Soviet leadership.

U.S. carrier battle groups justifiably became a fixation for Soviet air and naval forces, and both evolved to stop them. Using a combination of surface warships, submarines, long-range bombers, and perhaps even nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union planned to take out America’s carriers quickly and decisively, removing the threat to the homeland. Destroying these capable anti-submarine platforms would greatly benefit the Soviet Navy submarine campaign to isolate Western Europe.

The emphasis on aircraft carriers, what the U.S. Navy called Anti-Carrier Warfare, led to the Soviet Navy fielding a formidable force of guided-missile cruisers and battlecruisers. The three Slava class guided missile cruisers were 186.4 meters (611 feet long),  displaced 12,000 tons, and were capable of speeds of up to 32 knots–an important consideration when attempting to intercept nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

The three cruisers each carried sixteen P-500 Bazalt anti-ship missiles. The size of a small aircraft, the P-500 flew at speeds of Mach 2.5 and carried either a 1,000 kilogram (2,200 pounds) high explosive warhead or 350 kiloton nuclear warhead. The missile had a maximum effective range of 340 miles, with a circular error probable (CEP) of 300 to 700 meters (984 to 2,296 feet). That level of accuracy made actually hitting a 1,000-foot ship with a conventional warhead an iffy proposition, suggesting that Bazalt missiles would have been armed with nuclear warheads from the outset.

Another major surface platform that would stalk American carriers were the Kirov-class battlecruisers. The largest non-carrier surface combatants built by any country since World War II, the Kirov class was 827 feet long, nuclear powered, and displaced 28,000 tons fully loaded. The Kirovs carried 20 P-700 Granit missiles. Similar to the Bazalt missiles, Granit missiles had a slightly longer range of 388 miles and carried a slightly smaller 750 kilogram (1,633 pounds) high explosive warhead. On the other hand, it carried a larger 500 nuclear warhead. Unlike the Slava class, the Kirovs had formidable air defenses capable of defending the ship from a carrier’s air wing.

Soviet preparations for Anti-Carrier Warfare stretched into the submarine realm. The Soviet Navy built 14 Oscar-class guided-missile submarines, undersea leviathans that at 14,000 tons displaced more water than a Slava-class cruiser. Also nuclear powered, the Oscar submarines each carried 24 P-700 anti-ship missiles. Oscar submarines were plentiful enough to be assigned to both the Soviet Northern and Pacific Fleets, where they could threaten American carriers in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

Finally, Soviet Naval Aviation operated a large force of bombers and maritime patrol aircraft meant to search for and then destroy carrier task forces. The USSR assigned 120 Tu-22M “Backfire” supersonic bombers, 240 Tu-16 “Badger” bombers with AS-2, AS-5, and AS-6 missiles, and 35 Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers with gravity bombs to Soviet Naval Aviation, giving it enough punch to launch mass attacks against U.S. carrier battle groups.

Together all three arms of the Soviet Navy, surface, subsurface, and naval aviation, would relentlessly hunt down carrier battle groups, destroying them whenever possible. A surprise attack with nuclear-tipped anti-ship missiles could have caused terrible damage to America’s carrier fleet. Without the use of nuclear weapons Soviet forces might have staged several smaller uncoordinated attacks from all directions, wearing down the carrier task force’s defenders and depleting their ammunition reserves before launching a final, all-out attack.

From the American perspective, the threat of mass missile attacks was sufficient to develop a number of specialized weapon systems, including the Aegis Combat System, combining the SPY-1 radar and SM-2 surface-to-air missile into a potent fleet defender. Another countermeasure, particularly against Soviet bombers, was the F-14 Tomcat fleet air defense fighter, each of which had the powerful AWG-9 radar and carried six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles with a range of 100+ miles.

The Soviet Union was a land power, and the Soviet Navy was third in line for national resources. Yet even as the Red Army dashed for the Pyrenees in a future conflict NATO navies–particularly American aircraft carriers–could not be ignored. Ultimately destruction of U.S. aircraft carriers supported the ground offensive into Western Europe, where the Soviets believed the war would be won or lost.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/revealed-russias-plan-destroy-us-navy-aircraft-carriers-war-87286

The post Revealed: Russia’s Plan To Destroy U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers In a War first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Russian and Chinese navies have become increasingly active in the North Atlantic over the last five years, necessitating a return to a “competitive mindset” among U.S. Navy commanders, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said Monday.

“We’re talking about more [activity] than we’ve seen in 25 years,” Richardson said of Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic in an interview with Voice of America, adding that the Chinese Navy “is certainly a pacing competition for us in terms of the naval threat.”

Vice Adm. Charles A. Richard, the new head of U.S. Submarine Forces and Allied Submarine Command, put it more bluntly when he assumed command on August 3: “Prepare for battle!”

“This was Admiral Tofalo’s direction, and it is mine as well,” said Richard, referring to his predecessor, Vice Adm. Joseph E. Tofalo. “It is only by being prepared for battle that we can hope to avoid it. If we cannot, our nation expects and demands victory. We shall not fail!”

RELATED: HERE’S WHY THE NAVY IS REACTIVATING THE 2ND FLEET TO PATROL THE ATLANTIC »

The admirals’ warnings reflect threats described in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which calls upon the U.S. military to make “great power” competition with nations like Russia and China its primary focus rather than combating terrorism.

In May, the Navy announced the reactivation of the 2nd Fleet to oversee naval operations along the East Coast of the United States and across the Northern Atlantic to counter the growing threat of Moscow’s territorial ambitions pose to NATO allies.

The Navy says tackling this threat requires a shift in mentality across the force.

“Our Navy leaders are clearly communicating the need for every Sailor to take a more competitive mindset,” the Navy told Task & Purpose. “In order to maintain America’s maritime superiority, it’s imperative that we’re laser-focused on increasing our warfighting lethality and readiness not only within our Navy, but also with our joint sister services and our allies and partners.”

Despite the broad threat of Chinese subs operating in the North Atlantic, it’s the bellicose Russian military that the Navy is particularly worried about. In 2016, Adm. James Foggo III described tensions between Russia and the U.S. as the “fourth battle of the Atlantic” after the surface and sub encounters that marked World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

“Once again, an effective, skilled, and technologically advanced Russian submarine force is challenging us,” Foggo said. “Russian submarines are prowling the Atlantic, testing our defenses, confronting our command of the seas, and preparing the complex underwater battlespace to give them an edge in any future conflict.”

RELATED: WATCH THE US AND ITS ALLIES BLOW THE HELL OUT OF A WARSHIP IN A CLEAR MESSAGE TO CHINA »

‘Complex underwater battlespace’ is an understatement. In his VOA interview, Richardson noted that Americans sailors are increasingly dealing with advanced jamming equipment. “This is an emerging part of our business now,” he said. “Those disruptive technologies…are really going to be decisive in the future fight, and we’ve got to make sure that we’re investing in those as well.”

And that’s not to downplay the rising threat of the China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy, which has rapidly expanded its submarine fleet over the last decade and expects to boast 70 subs by 2020, according to the Department of Defense.

There is, however, at least one Pentagon official who doesn’t seem phased by all the recent commotion in the Atlantic . When asked about Richardson’s VOA interview on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense James Mattis brushed off the question.

“We watch all submarine activity,” he said. “[I’m] not concerned about it.”

Source: https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-north-atlantic-russia-china/

The post The Navy Is Gearing Up For A Fight With Russia In The North Atlantic first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.