China deploys HQ-9 on S-China Sea Island

tincansailor · by **tincansailor** » 17 Feb 2016, 10:52

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/surfac ... 1759519656

China has deployed two batteries of HQ-9 SAMs on Woody Island in the South China Sea. Woody Island is part of the Paracel Islands, which lies in the northern end of the South China Sea roughly between Luzon and Vietnam. China has built an airfield, and stationed J-11 fighters along with the new SAM systems on the Island. This along with the new 11,000 foot airfield on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands several hundred miles to the south posses an increasing threat to shipping, and air traffic in the South China Sea.

It seems to me it's only a matter of time before China deploys fighters and SAMs on Fiery Cross which would put them in a position to threaten all shipping, and air traffic north of Palawan Island. The situation is just getting hotter, and hotter. I fear it's only going to get worse, as tensions rise between all the powers in the region. Everyone is arming fast, with new ships, and aircraft. Vietnam is also upgrading it's army because it faces a major land threat from China. India is building a powerful fleet, and is inserting it's self into the South China Sea as an ally of Vietnam.

Remember the Chinese curse. "May you live in interesting times." China is setting up the whole East Asia region for some interesting times.

deadseal · by **deadseal** » 17 Feb 2016, 15:16

SEND IN THE WARTHOGS TO STRAFE THE HQ-9!!!

oh wait

Fox1 · by **Fox1** » 17 Feb 2016, 15:55

So much chaos and turmoil around the world today. China is acting aggressively in the western Pacific. North Korea is continuing to act like North Korea. Iran continues on their merry way while mocking the joke that is current U.S. foreign policy. Then you have the whole Russia/east Europe thing and a Syria situation that continues to become more volatile and less predictable by the minute as the various involved parties (with separate or competing interests I might add) continue to stoke the fires.

I don't know about the rest of you, but January 2017 can't come fast enough for me. I don't yet know who the successor will be, but I do know that whoever that ultimately ends up being can't be any worse on the issue of foreign policy than our present amateur-in-chief. My gosh, the U.S. has never been in more desperate need for some competent leadership.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 17 Feb 2016, 16:34

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 17 Feb 2016, 17:05

Are you a fan of "Babylon 5" XanderCrews?

les_paul59 · by **les_paul59** » 17 Feb 2016, 17:38

Fox 1 lets try to dial back the politics no matter which side you are for, by the way North Korea and Iran are going to misbehave no matter who is potus because they are governments run by rulers with extreme views.

China will eventually be strong enough to defend its own claims in the south china sea, i don't think the u.s. can win that battle in the long run. Not that a U.S. v China war is in the best interests of either side.

deadseal · by **deadseal** » 17 Feb 2016, 17:42

les_paul59 wrote:Fox 1 lets try to dial back the politics no matter which side you are for, by the way North Korea and Iran are going to misbehave no matter who is potus because they are governments run by rulers with extreme views.

China will eventually be strong enough to defend its own claims in the south china sea, i don't think the u.s. can win that battle in the long run. Not that a U.S. v China war is in the best interests of either side.

i agree.....i think you give too much credit to the power of the president anyway. Whats the answer? war? blow some carrier groups through there and say stop? the chinese will do whatever they want short of invading someones established borders or blowing sh1t up. they know neither side wants war

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 17 Feb 2016, 17:57

The risk is not so much military aircraft than to civilian airliners. The air traffic through those areas is quite heavy. One misfire and China would have a lot to answer.

les_paul59 · by **les_paul59** » 17 Feb 2016, 18:01

It is true that the West and China differ on many things, and honestly most of us in the west don't understand their culture.......but they aren't going to just start blowing up commercial airliners for kicks.

China understands that if they block shipping lanes or shoot down airliners the U.S. can answer with a strong show of force that in the near term they can't adequately respond to.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Feb 2016, 18:08

What has this news item got to do with the F-35?

PhillyGuy · by **PhillyGuy** » 23 Feb 2016, 08:32

The Chinese are very busy building all sorts of runways, radar sites and piers, soon staffing them with SAMs, tactical fighter aircraft and naval warships. In peacetime US forces in the area will unfortunately have to endure being very visible, shadowed and under the barrel of a gun while in the AO. My biggest worry is the intelligence value of such a complex and comprehensive surveillance and patrol system the Chinese are setting up. Finally, the last dimension that for now the Chinese seem to overlook is the undersea domain. Our nuke boats can go anywhere and lurk and if need be cause a lot of damage very quickly that does not appear on any ground or airborne radar until it is too late. In wartime their shield and visor can be quickly pieced and blinded but short of that, we're under the spotlight in the SCS I'm afraid. Blame diplomacy, because the carrot did not work.
Time to bring in the STICK.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 23 Feb 2016, 19:26

spazsinbad wrote:What has this news item got to do with the F-35?

Well, its not on the F-35 thread anyway so I think it's fine, but then again, SAM sites are what the F-35 was deigned for, have some of those F-35Bs armed with JSOWs stationed in Palawan island and those HQ-9s are suddenly ineffective.

F-15s can deal with the J-11 threat.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 23 Feb 2016, 23:40

Only have to take out the radar and the sam bty is useless. That can be done with a cheap sdb internally carried.

madrat · by **madrat** » 24 Feb 2016, 00:27

Isn't the island fragile? I thought it was built on a shelf. Probably one storm away from settling to the bottom

mrigdon · by **mrigdon** » 01 Mar 2016, 00:46

madrat wrote:Isn't the island fragile? I thought it was built on a shelf. Probably one storm away from settling to the bottom

BIngo.

They're built on reefs in some cases. I don't know why everyone thinks China is outsmarting everyone with this. First, if a tsunami rips through the South China Sea, all of these Chinese facilities are gone. No need for war. Second, sea levels are rising. For everyone who says, one day China can stand up to America, by the time that happens, all of these bases may be underwater anyway.