1
1
0
China's first runway in Spratlys under construction
Key Points
Satellite imagery shows that China has begun building a runway on reclaimed parts of Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands
The imagery, provided by Airbus Defence and Space, also shows China building islands on Subi Reef that if linked up would provide enough land for another airstrip
China has begun to build its first airstrip in the Spratly Islands, according to IHS Jane’s analysis of Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery taken in March.
The 23 March images show a paved section of runway 503 m by 53 m on the northeastern side of Fiery Cross Reef, which China began to turn into an island in late 2014. Paving and ground preparation of other sections of the runway has also begun further along the island. In addition, workers have paved about 400 m by 20 m of apron.
Airbus Defence and Space imagery shows runway construction underway at Fiery Cross Reef. (© CNES 2015, Distribution Airbus DS / Spot Image / IHS) 1569027
Airbus Defence and Space imagery shows runway construction underway at Fiery Cross Reef. (© CNES 2015, Distribution Airbus DS / Spot Image / IHS) 1569027
Other imagery taken in March also shows China could be building a second airstrip-capable island on Subi Reef.
China’s island building at Fiery Cross Reef has created a landmass that is capable of housing a runway about 3,000 m long. This would be well within the parameters of existing People’s Liberation Army Air Force runways on mainland China, which vary in length from about 2,700 m to 4,000 m at most.
The runway at Woody Island in the Paracel Islands was about 2,300 m before upgrade work started there in 2014; satellite imagery suggests China is also expanding that to be about 3,000 m long.
The 23 March imagery of Fiery Cross Reef also shows further dredging on the new island’s southwestern side, close to the extant platform that China originally built on the reef. The imagery also shows floating cranes consolidating the integrity of new island’s harbour by placing concrete blocks on the interior walls; an exterior sea wall has also been extended, presumably to provide better protection for ships in port.
Airbus imagery taken of Subi Reef – also in the Spratlys – on 6 February and 5 March shows land reclamation on this site too. The 6 February image shows three islands being created. By 5 March, at least nine dredgers are creating larger landmasses on the reef that if joined together could create enough land for another 3,000 m-long airstrip.
While Fiery Cross Reef is to the west of the Spratly Islands archipelago, Subi Reef is on the north side of the island group and is only 25 km from Thitu/Pagasa island, which is occupied by the Philippines and has a civilian population.
http://www.janes.com/article/50714/china-s-first-runway-in-spratlys-under-construction
Key Points
Satellite imagery shows that China has begun building a runway on reclaimed parts of Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands
The imagery, provided by Airbus Defence and Space, also shows China building islands on Subi Reef that if linked up would provide enough land for another airstrip
China has begun to build its first airstrip in the Spratly Islands, according to IHS Jane’s analysis of Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery taken in March.
The 23 March images show a paved section of runway 503 m by 53 m on the northeastern side of Fiery Cross Reef, which China began to turn into an island in late 2014. Paving and ground preparation of other sections of the runway has also begun further along the island. In addition, workers have paved about 400 m by 20 m of apron.
Airbus Defence and Space imagery shows runway construction underway at Fiery Cross Reef. (© CNES 2015, Distribution Airbus DS / Spot Image / IHS) 1569027
Airbus Defence and Space imagery shows runway construction underway at Fiery Cross Reef. (© CNES 2015, Distribution Airbus DS / Spot Image / IHS) 1569027
Other imagery taken in March also shows China could be building a second airstrip-capable island on Subi Reef.
China’s island building at Fiery Cross Reef has created a landmass that is capable of housing a runway about 3,000 m long. This would be well within the parameters of existing People’s Liberation Army Air Force runways on mainland China, which vary in length from about 2,700 m to 4,000 m at most.
The runway at Woody Island in the Paracel Islands was about 2,300 m before upgrade work started there in 2014; satellite imagery suggests China is also expanding that to be about 3,000 m long.
The 23 March imagery of Fiery Cross Reef also shows further dredging on the new island’s southwestern side, close to the extant platform that China originally built on the reef. The imagery also shows floating cranes consolidating the integrity of new island’s harbour by placing concrete blocks on the interior walls; an exterior sea wall has also been extended, presumably to provide better protection for ships in port.
Airbus imagery taken of Subi Reef – also in the Spratlys – on 6 February and 5 March shows land reclamation on this site too. The 6 February image shows three islands being created. By 5 March, at least nine dredgers are creating larger landmasses on the reef that if joined together could create enough land for another 3,000 m-long airstrip.
While Fiery Cross Reef is to the west of the Spratly Islands archipelago, Subi Reef is on the north side of the island group and is only 25 km from Thitu/Pagasa island, which is occupied by the Philippines and has a civilian population.
http://www.janes.com/article/50714/china-s-first-runway-in-spratlys-under-construction
IHS Jane's
China
Security
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 15
3
3
0
SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas - Senior Master Sergeant; Potentially. On the other hand the last paragraph says a lot that people on this side of the ocean aren't hearing.
One of the things which compelled the Japanese to attack the United States of America - even though they knew that they weren't going to win - was "face" and potential loss of "face".
You or I might not think that that is significant, but neither of us is Chinese.
One of the things which compelled the Japanese to attack the United States of America - even though they knew that they weren't going to win - was "face" and potential loss of "face".
You or I might not think that that is significant, but neither of us is Chinese.
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Sir, the Japanese didnt' attack the US with the belief they were going to lose. Certain military leaders didn't think they would win a prolonged war (Yamamoto), but Hideki Tojo's cabal absolutely thought they could win their objectives, which was not the destruction of the US , but a negotiated peace in the Pacific with Japan retaining all conquered territories.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
LTC Paul Labrador - To further your point, Yamamato stated that the war had to be won within 6 months or else they would not at all.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Paul Labrador / SSgt (Join to see) - Gentlemen; The Japanese knew that they could not "win a war" against the United States of America. What they were counting on was the United States of America not thinking that the "cost of a war" was worth it and thereby "quitting before winning". The Japanese miscalculated.
There is a subtle difference between "starting a war that you know you will lose" and "starting a war that you think the other side will quit fighting before you do".
The Vietnamese knew damn well that they could not DEFEAT the United States of America - but they believed that they could stay in the war longer than the US could and that, as a result of that, that they would WIN the war. The Vietnamese did not miscalculate.
There is a subtle difference between "starting a war that you know you will lose" and "starting a war that you think the other side will quit fighting before you do".
The Vietnamese knew damn well that they could not DEFEAT the United States of America - but they believed that they could stay in the war longer than the US could and that, as a result of that, that they would WIN the war. The Vietnamese did not miscalculate.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Maybe regional disputes with countries disputing ownership of the islands, but not WWIII.
China forced one of our EP-3s down in the South China Sea way back... That didn't start a conflict.
There are issues with the Chinese harassing vessels out in international waters along the Chinese coast line... no conflicts. (https://www.google.com/search?q=china+harrasses+US+ships+in+international+waters&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
The fact is that both China and the US have a vested interest in not creating armed conflict between them.
China forced one of our EP-3s down in the South China Sea way back... That didn't start a conflict.
There are issues with the Chinese harassing vessels out in international waters along the Chinese coast line... no conflicts. (https://www.google.com/search?q=china+harrasses+US+ships+in+international+waters&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
The fact is that both China and the US have a vested interest in not creating armed conflict between them.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SPC David S. - China has been developing the Spratleys for military purposes for a VERY long time (long before the Obama Administration). China has a long list of plays in the political play book to use against the US without having to borrow from Putin.
Honestly, China is trying to expand it's influence beyond the North, East and South China seas. Expansionism is part of that game plan. When we wanted to expand our influence further into the Pacific, we started building naval and air bases on sparsely populated atolls in little known island chains.
Counter to that, you could argue that the Japanese Empire desired to expand their influence as well. The US and Japan eventually had an all out conflict that determined who was to have dominance over the Pacific. Based on this history, you could argue the same for a China vs. US fight for dominance. But, there is a huge difference between then and now... a large and interdependent global economy. Neither country can afford to go to war with each other due to the severe impact to their economies.
Honestly, China is trying to expand it's influence beyond the North, East and South China seas. Expansionism is part of that game plan. When we wanted to expand our influence further into the Pacific, we started building naval and air bases on sparsely populated atolls in little known island chains.
Counter to that, you could argue that the Japanese Empire desired to expand their influence as well. The US and Japan eventually had an all out conflict that determined who was to have dominance over the Pacific. Based on this history, you could argue the same for a China vs. US fight for dominance. But, there is a huge difference between then and now... a large and interdependent global economy. Neither country can afford to go to war with each other due to the severe impact to their economies.
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
Yes the economics involved in going to war with China really make this problematic for the US - "Hey China can we borrow 4 trillion so we can go to war with you and are we still good at the old interest rate." There is also a big risk for other nations as well in financing our war if the dollar were to lose value. However going to war with China is one way of welshing on our Chinese debt and restart manufacturing in the US.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SPC David S. - I agree. But there is also a little bit more. A war with China would mean that our Walmart's shelves would be empty. Vital supplies that American consumers use on a day to day basis would be gone within a few days of the start of war between the US and China. Many of the products that are not produced in the US would be gone while others would see a sharp increase in price.
Maybe a positive outcome, as you said before, would be a reboot of the American manufacturing industry. Like the one we experienced in post WW2 United States.
Maybe a positive outcome, as you said before, would be a reboot of the American manufacturing industry. Like the one we experienced in post WW2 United States.
(1)
(0)
Cpl James Waycasie
SSgt (Join to see) - Actually a lot of products that China supplies, japan, India, South Korea, used to supply and they still produce such items. It would be a temporary set back and we would suffer some until we could buy from them or produce products ourselves but it wouldn't be a major issue for very long. Americans need to refresh themselves with some basic self supply info such as vegetable gardening, canning, dehydrating and smoking meats, etc.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas I think we need to always be concerned about China and their continued military build up. I'm surprised we haven't had a leader like Reagan come along and start a Cold War with China since it continues to build its military force and show aggressive signs that they will do anything to make the Pacific region their own. I think these manmade islands are nice significant targets that could be taken out very quickly as well if that day ever comes. Let's hope it doesn't!
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Getting rid of this president cannot come soon enough. This is no time to walk on egg shells when the Chinese are being patently aggressive. I am hard-pressed to understand this administration except for the obvious.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Colonel; You say "... and show aggressive signs that they will do anything to make the Pacific region their own. ...".
That may very well be the case from the point of view of some non-Chinese who consider the Pacific region their own, but from the point of view of some Chinese who consider the Pacific region their own then what they are doing is DEFENSIVE and not aggressive.
You might want to factor in the fact that the Japanese (who had been encouraged by the US government to think of the Pacific region as their own) believed that they were acting "defensively" because they saw their whole economy being threatened with destruction due to the implementation of a total embargo on materials which they could not continue to exist without.
One acts "defensively" when one perceives that one is being attacked BUT that action can be identical to an "aggression" in form and substance. The difference is in the motivation.
The more that a group comes under attack (even if the attacks are intended by the attackers to be mere rhetoric spewed out for some ulterior motive) the more "defensive" that group is likely to become - and that defence just might include smiting the perceived foe before the perceived for can strike.
PS - If your planning postulates the loss of 100% of an asset after that asset has served its purpose, then losing the asset isn't particularly significant to the plan.
That may very well be the case from the point of view of some non-Chinese who consider the Pacific region their own, but from the point of view of some Chinese who consider the Pacific region their own then what they are doing is DEFENSIVE and not aggressive.
You might want to factor in the fact that the Japanese (who had been encouraged by the US government to think of the Pacific region as their own) believed that they were acting "defensively" because they saw their whole economy being threatened with destruction due to the implementation of a total embargo on materials which they could not continue to exist without.
One acts "defensively" when one perceives that one is being attacked BUT that action can be identical to an "aggression" in form and substance. The difference is in the motivation.
The more that a group comes under attack (even if the attacks are intended by the attackers to be mere rhetoric spewed out for some ulterior motive) the more "defensive" that group is likely to become - and that defence just might include smiting the perceived foe before the perceived for can strike.
PS - If your planning postulates the loss of 100% of an asset after that asset has served its purpose, then losing the asset isn't particularly significant to the plan.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSgt (Join to see) - Staff; Very good point.
Maybe to show how firm the resolve of the United States of America is in its demand that no foreigners control the Pacific, it should consider giving Hawai'i back to the Hawai'ians (who weren't allowed to vote in the "plebiscite" on whether to seek admission to the United States of America and whose government was being kept prisoner by corporate goons at the time).
If you don't think that America should go that far, do you think that it would be a nice gesture if the US government returned the personal property of the Hawai'ian royal family (which was seized - to protect it - at the same time as the non-Hawai'ians seized control of the independent and sovereign country of Hawai'i and then ran a "plebiscite" which was to tainted that even the US government wouldn't accept the results for decades)?
Maybe to show how firm the resolve of the United States of America is in its demand that no foreigners control the Pacific, it should consider giving Hawai'i back to the Hawai'ians (who weren't allowed to vote in the "plebiscite" on whether to seek admission to the United States of America and whose government was being kept prisoner by corporate goons at the time).
If you don't think that America should go that far, do you think that it would be a nice gesture if the US government returned the personal property of the Hawai'ian royal family (which was seized - to protect it - at the same time as the non-Hawai'ians seized control of the independent and sovereign country of Hawai'i and then ran a "plebiscite" which was to tainted that even the US government wouldn't accept the results for decades)?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google