And apparently Naval Base Guam isn't one naval base, it's 12!
And the Naval Hospital is a "base", too!
Even by the source document's absurd standards, the number of "bases" is 439, with 300+ yet smaller facilities called "lily pads", or even "unconfirmed".
Oh hey, the New Sanno Hotel in Tokyo is a "base", too. It's a hotel. For US military and govt, but it's a hotel.
Anyone care to guess if "Yokohama No Dock Navy" and "Yokohama North Dock" is double-counting basically the same thing?
This is what two "overseas U.S. bases" looks like.
Ok, enough, you get the idea.
Sad thing is, there're reasonable arguments to be made that we have too many bases, or that they're in the wrong places, or aren't set up to do the right things. But bad data trumpeted in support of an agenda IMO isn't a great way to make the point.
This has been making the rounds—another article calling for U.S. conventional submarines—so I suppose it's time to weigh in. In this case, the article is written by someone personally knowledgeable of submarine operations—a U.S. submariner.
...the article seems to be missing consideration of two key factors that IMO continue to make the idea of U.S. (manned) diesel-electric submarines a bad idea: advances in autonomy, and the PLA Rocket Force.
First, autonomy: he explicitly calls for these diesel boats as cruise missile platforms (SSGs), making a point to separate them from the multi-mission capabilities of U.S. SSNs.
No need for ISR, ASW, or torpedo capability. Ok, great—this sounds like a perfect job for an XXLUUV.
She's pretty clear about how we got where we are: close to a US-PRC war, that the problem started with Taiwan.
She says the situation is not pre-ordained, and that the best way to avoid a war is to restrain US military posture in the region and tell Taiwan they may be on their own.
(I'd say she's half-right: it didn't have to be this way; but I'd place the blame elsewhere.)
Ok, a few more thoughts on some of the things we saw in this week’s PLA parade. I’ll start in the undersea domain, with this large UUV.
Going back and looking at the footage, you can see in this shot that it appears to have a couple of sonar arrays.
My guess is that those are a flank array and a bow array.
We can also see 4 masts/antennas: 3 appear to be retractable with a closure panel and one fixed on a short mast near the stern (see above).
Based on the number of sensors - sonar for acoustic detection, masts perhaps for EW/ESM, video, perhaps a snorkel for a diesel, I’m guessing this is an ISR UUV.
From this shot, it appears it has a 9-bladed propulsor.
China’s parade is about to get started. Xi is making a speech where he says China is a force for peace, development, etc. Anyway…time to roll those new missiles, UxVs, armored vehicles, etc.
(I’ll be posting any stuff that I see that’s particularly interesting. Here we go…)
Right now it’s just Xi driving by - wondering now if they’re going to roll this stuff past like in the past or if this is it?
Looks like some unmanned undersea and surface vessels (UUVs and USVs).
hooboy, that's a lot of doing things the wrong way...😬
I recall time there being significance attached to the "dropped two wts" message in the reporting at the time, as an indication they had a problem & needed to come up. Apparently completely normal.
In contrast, I recall no word that THEY HEARD A BANG FROM THE OCEAN SURFACE. 😬
In the "you can't make this stuff up" category, in this 16 Apr image of COMEC's Longxue shipyard in Guangzhou you can see 5 of China's new Shuiqiao-class "invasion barges", whose only apparent purpose is to invade Taiwan, as well as...
...based on AIS data, what also appears to be a container ship under construction for a TAIWANESE Company, Evergreen Lines.
(and a couple of Zubr-class assault hovercraft, PLA Navy auxiliaries, and more.)