China Gets New Guided-Missile Destroyer and Considers to Set Up Air Defense Zone in South China Sea

Donate

China Gets New Guided-Missile Destroyer and Considers to Set Up Air Defense Zone in South China Sea

Photo: chinanews.com

China announced the commissioning of its fourth guided-missile destroyer, 052D Yinchuan, and warned it could set up an air defense zone over the disputed area in the South China Sea, the RT information website reported on July 13. The announcement was made right after the Hague Tribunal ruled on China’s claims in the South China Sea.

According to China’s Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin, Beijing has all the rights to create an air defense zone in the South China Sea. The decision will depend on the type of threat China faces. However, Beijing hopes to resume negotiations with the Philippines over the South China Sea.

At the same time, Senior Colonel Yang Yujun, spokesman for the Ministry of National Defense (MND), said that “the Chinese military will firmly safeguard its national sovereignty, security and maritime rights and interests, unwaveringly safeguard regional peace and stability and deal with all kinds of threats and challenges.”

The new 052D Yinchuan destroyer was put into operation in the port in Sanya in the Hainan province on July 12. The port is situated on an island that is the nation’s southernmost point.

The length of the Yinchuan destroyer is about 150 meters. It has a 20-meter beam, and is equipped with advanced weapons systems. The guided-missile destroyer can conduct aerial defense, antisubmarine operations, and anti-sea missions, making it one of the most powerful vessels that China has today.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Veritas Vincit

    ‘U.S./allied bloc preparations for military conflict with the PRC’

    – “The report [‘Australia-Japan-US Maritime Cooperation’ by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies] contains specific recommendations to enhance “inter-operability” on intelligence and surveillance, submarine and anti-submarine warfare, amphibious forces and logistics….. The report’s author, Andrew Shearer, is a senior figure in the Australian foreign policy and military establishment…. Shearer is also very well connected in Washington [and] makes clear [the] main “hard security” objective is to prepare for war with China. The Pentagon’s preoccupation with “freedom of navigation” and China’s A2/AD [Anti-Access, Area Denial] systems flows directly from its military strategy for war with China—Air Sea Battle…. Australia and Japan are central to Air Sea Battle and associated strategies, which include a naval blockade of China to strangle its economy…… [Air Sea Battle] relies on networked, integrated forces to take the offensive across air, maritime, land, space and cyberspace…..” (CSIS report argues for strong US-Japan-Australia alliance against China, 9 April 2016)

    – “the Australian military is being integrated into the US military’s AirSea Battle doctrine. Under this plan, US forces will launch attacks on the Chinese mainland, while Australian forces will cut off China’s maritime trade links…. starving its economy of oil, gas and other essential resources.” (Sydney’s week-long military extravaganza foreshadows new wars, WSWS, 11 October 2013)

    – “the [Australian] navy is being made ready to play an essential part in the US-led build-up for war against China. The French “Barracuda” class submarines have been chosen for their long-range offensive capabilities, suited in particular to deployment in the South China Sea. The US military, which was closely involved in the evaluation process, expects them to be fully interoperable with the US navy, equipped with American combat and weapons systems.” (Submarine project no solution for South Australia’s employment crisis, By John Braddock, 14 May 2016)

    – “US forces would launch physical attacks and cyberattacks against the enemy’s ‘kill-chain’ of sensors and weaponry in order to disrupt its command-and-control systems, wreck its launch platforms (including aircraft, ships and missile sites) and finally defeat the weapons they actually fire. The sooner the kill-chain is broken, the less damage US forces would suffer, and the more damage they will be able to inflict on the enemy….. (US analysts debate plans for war against China, WSWS, 10 February 2014), etc…….

    The necessity for the PRC (and similarly the RF) to accelerate counter-measures (in response to significant war preparations by an opposing bloc) is self evident.

    It is not ideal but I would respectfully argue necessary to respond through the development of a counter-bloc as the intention of the U.S./NATO bloc is to engineer/develop the expansion of allied states (and foment tensions between other states) through the exacerbation of disagreements/disputes (as is being employed in the S China Sea region). The U.S./NATO bloc is developing an anti-China bloc as it is developing an anti-Russia bloc.

    In the unwanted but possible event of direct conflict between military blocs, as allied states (such as Australia that is playing a key role in allied preparations for the situation of military conflict) of the U.S./NATO bloc will augment bloc operations [1][2][3][4][5][6], policies of the RF and the PRC (including of strategic forces) can be quietly adjusted accordingly.

    • Veritas Vincit

      p2. References:

      1. “Australia is in the process of receiving an upgrade to “enhanced Partnership” status, giving greater diplomatic and military access to NATO operations. Australia is represented by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister David Johnston, who have Russian president Vladimir Putin firmly in their sights.” (NATO summit: Australia strengthens ties with Atlantic alliance, but strains of global policing starting to show, By Mark Corcoran, [Australian] ABC news, 05/09/2014)

      2. “From Washington to Brussels to Canberra – the Pentagon, NATO and a rapidly evolving Asian NATO – the strategy like the terminology is identical: Interminable military deployments and combat operations in South and Central Asia as the model for new wars.” (NATO: Afghan War Model For Future 21st Century Operations, by Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, November 19, 2010)

      3. “None of this is about ‘protecting Australia’ from attack. The White Paper itself admits there is no conceivable threat against the Australian mainland in the next 20 years. The implausibility of the White Paper’s rhetoric about a long-term threat from China is demonstrated by the fact that the two agencies commissioned to write assessments of this threat rejected it out of hand. According to The Australian, the Defence Intelligence Organisation described China’s military build-up as a non-threatening ‘defensive’ response to American naval power in the Pacific and judged that Beijing did not have ‘hegemonic’ or ‘expansionist’ ambitions. Far from being concerned about its own defences, Australia has long been the dominant power in its immediate region, using its economic and military muscle to intimidate and coerce smaller neighbours to bend to its will. The government is now aiming to expand this influence further into Asia, and to establish Australia as a more significant military force on the world stage.” (Source: Australia’s White Paper for war, Corey Oakley, May 2009)

      4. “The sale includes 14 of the AGM-88B and 16 of the AGM-88E versions of the anti-air defense missiles, which seek and destroy ground radar. DSCA said the sale would contribute to Australia’s ability to join US-led coalition military campaigns.” (US Approves $69Mln Sale of Radar-Destroying Missiles to Australia, 22/06/2015)

      5. “defense analysts from both countries expect an increased presence in Australia for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marines in the form of bombers, nuclear submarines, missiles and troops…. it’s likely the Air Force will begin using runways in the northern part of the country, possibly for the B-52 strategic bomber and B-2 stealth bomber… [missile architecture] cooperation is more likely to speed up….” (Deal likely to bring more US military assets to Australia’, Stripes, June 20, 2014)

      6. “The US Defense Department and the Australian Defence Force are conducting a joint study into…. the feasibility of rotating an entire US aircraft carrier battle group to the port of Stirling near Perth… American long-range B-52 bombers now spend up to six months a year at airbases in Darwin and nearby Tindal…” (US military looks to expand use of Australian bases and ports, 16 February 2015)