For The First Time In 13 Years, U.S. Deploys 7 Aircraft Carriers Simultaneously

The US has simultaneously deployed 7 of the 11 U.S. nuclear aircraft carriers for the first time in over a decade according to the US Naval Institute. The three aircraft carriers with full air wings and strike groups positioned in the Western Pacific are the following: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76); USS Nimitz (CVN-68); USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). Another four are conducting “short training missions as part of training operations or workups ahead of deployment”.  Two out of four are operating in Eastern Pacific -  USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) - and the remaining two are operating in the Atlantic, the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78).

Top: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
Center: USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
Bottom: USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), USS Nimitz (CVN-68), USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

Back in 2016, six carriers were underway and that was considered a “milestone event” by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson. The last time 7 carriers were deployed dates back to 2004, according to USNI. The report quotes an unidentified Navy official to sheds more light on the upcoming drills:

The Reagan, Nimitz and Roosevelt strike groups are all operating in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations. Reagan is operating in the Sea of Japan near the Korean peninsula while Nimitz is returning to its homeport at Naval Station Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash. after a deployment to the Persian Gulf to conduct air strike against ISIS targets. Roosevelt deployed from San Diego, Calif. on Oct. 7 set to replace Nimitz as part of the continued U.S. operation against ISIS.

More basic details were provided by the report for the remaining aircraft carriers:

• Vinson is conducting a planned sustainment exercise and flight tests with the F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter, while Stennis left Kitsap-Bremerton last week for training after coming out of a repair period. A sailor on Vinson was injured Friday after being struck with a plane being towed on the flight deck.


• Lincoln is undergoing a series of qualifications following the completion of a mid-life refueling and complex overhaul and return to the fleet in May.


• Ford is continuing years of tests and training before the ship will be fully integrated into the U.S. fleet and leave on its first deployment sometime in the early 2020s.

“Naval aviation is supporting the requirements of combatant commanders forward while building our capabilities for future deployments–and qualifying new pilots–with training near our shores,” Vice Adm. Michael Shoemaker, commander Naval Air Forces said in a Monday statement provided to USNI News.
“The addition of USS Gerald Ford is exciting, as we test the capabilities for the future. This optempo is not ordinary, but the demand for carriers remains as high as ever.”

Also on Monday, VoA"s White House bureau chief Steve Herman, confirmed what had been speculated previously, namely that 3 of the carriers will participate in an extremely rare drill in "the estern Pacific", read off the Korean peninsula. As the report states, this would be the first time the “7th Fleet converged for the “first simultaneous three-strike group training operations in a decade”.

Confirmed: @USNavy to stage exercise in western Pacific in coming days with 3 aircraft carrier strike groups.

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) November 6, 2017

Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford tried to diffuse the situation, saying that “these three carriers are not there specifically targeting North Korea. This is a routine demonstration of our commitment to the region.” The exercise is overlapping President Trump’s 12-day excursion across Asia amid high-tensions between Pyongyang and Washington.

Indicatively, as of last week, this was the latest positioning of US Carrier Strike Groups, courtesy of Stratfor.

The timing of the 3-carrier drill in the Western Pacific coincides with President Trump’s trip to South Korea. As Trump’s latest tweet indicates (4:28pm), he is “getting ready to leave for South Korea”.

Getting ready to leave for South Korea and meetings with President Moon, a fine gentleman. We will figure it all out!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2017

With 7 carriers deployed today of which 3 about to launch drills in Western Pacific, we find it odd this is all occurring around President Trump’s trip to Asia.

On October 28, North Korea accused the US of making “criminal moves for igniting a war of aggression”, after Kim Jong-Un learned three US-Navy carriers will operate in Asian waters. According to Jim Mattis, United States Secretary of Defense, said “our goal is not war, but rather the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula”, something North Korea has previously said it will never agree to.

Finally, another drill that should be closely watched is Israel’s “largest-ever aerial military drill”, which started yesterday. Sometimes these drills "accidentally" go live. 

Goodbye Royal Marines

Authored by Matthew Jamison via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Over the course of the summer there was great fanfare and much to do from the British Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon MP, regarding the "completion" of two new British aircraft carriers called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Fallon, a thoroughly odious English Tory and old Cold War warrior, got punch drunk and completely giddy with the unveiling of the new aircraft carriers. Fallon got so excited he started spouting the most ridiculous anti-Russian nonsense such as this contrasting the Royal Navy’s new 65,000-ton carrier with what he called the “dilapidated” Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Fallon went on in wild Cold War terminology to invoke the spectre of what he erroneously and egregiously called "Russian aggression" and absurdly claimed that the mighty Russian Federation was some how "jealous" of Britain"s two new aircraft carriers. Quite frankly, there is not much to be jealous about when one scratches beneath the Tory English anti- Russian surface.

As is so often the case with the English, in particular their most offensive incarnation in the form of the Tory Party, what the English say and what the reality of the situation is, the hard cold truth, are two very different matters that rarely, if ever, gel together. Fallon quoted the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher [who actually had tremendous respect and admiration for and a very good working relationship with the last General Secretary of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev] in trying to whip up stupid and offensive anti-Russian Cold War sentiment. Well, I am reminded of another one of Mrs Thatcher"s great quotations which I am fond of throwing back in ugly English Tory faces: "Such is presentation......how different from reality."

Fallon would not countenance any criticism of the new aircraft carriers, their cost, their Ministry of Defence project management, their sea readiness, their utility, and a whole host of other salient issues which deserved scrutiny by snapping that critics should "shut up." I"m sorry Fallon but the last time I checked the UK was supposedly a free liberal democracy with intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Not some Gestapo State as your colleague Mrs May has attempted to create.

So let us examine closely how brilliant and what a great investment these two new British aircraft carriers are. Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales have roughly cost the hard pressed, almost bankrupt UK taxpayer a combined 6 Billion Pounds. At the official launch of HMS Queen Elizabeth back in the summer Fallon boasted: 

"But Queen Elizabeth, the biggest and the greatest warship this country has ever built, will go on now from these trials to defend our country, to safeguard our sea lanes, to work with our allies and partners to keep the peace, and to save lives across all seven seas."

When pressed on what he would say to the "armchair critics", Fallon beat his meagre chest and said

"They should come and see this wonderful flagship of the Royal Navy, which will help keep this country safe for 50 years to come."

Not to leave any hostages to fortune and most certainly not to be modest Fallon went on:

 "This is a great day for Britain. There are only three other countries in the world building aircraft carriers - and we are building two."

Let us blow away the Fallon/Tory/English spin and Rule Britannia hyperbole and examine the truth.

While on a tour of the Royal Navy’s mighty new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, an intrepid journalist noticed that it is fitted with the exact same software that was hit by a massive cyber-attack only a few months ago. HMS Queen Elizabeth is the most expensive aircraft carrier ever to be built for the Royal Navy at over 3 Billion Pounds but it is running on the same IT software system used by the NHS that were targeted by cyber hackers earlier this year. Also HMS Queen Elizabeth is designed to house 36 fast jets. None of which have yet been built. What is the point of an aircraft carrier if there are no aircraft to land on it? As Jeremy Clarkson writing in The Sun put it: "Apparently, three of the Anglo-American F-35s will be delivered to the Navy in 2020, then six more the following year. Quite what the crew is supposed to do to defend itself in the meantime is unclear. Use rude gestures, perhaps?"

And there is the small matter about the usual serial incompetence of the utterly corrupt and incompetent UK Ministry of Defence and its budget planning and project planning when it came to the building and budgeting for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The Ministry of Defence as usual can not organise a tea party in China. Thanks to these two new aircraft carriers there is now a massive 30 Billion Pound black hole in the UK Ministry of Defence"s budget. Several senior Ministry of Defence officials linked to UK defence procurement have in recent weeks resigned while the Ministry of Defence has now had to engage in a behind the scenes, classic Whitehall cover up cost cutting exercise.

The sacrificial lamb for plugging this massive financial black hole so Britain can have two utterly useless, good for nothing, football stadium aircraft carriers without any aircraft will be the Royal Marines and their beach landing ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. 

Churchill would be turning in his grave if he knew that Britain was sacrificing her ability to "fight them on the beaches" so Michael Fallon can swan around spouting rubbish about how Russia is "jealous" of these aircraft carriers and more anti-Russian garbage about how: "the resurgence of Russian aggression abroad...[is] undermining democracy wherever it can” and how these aircraft carriers represent "90% of it - British - 17 million parts. This ship is a floating showcase for British industry, British talent, British skills and British brainpower."

Fallon is not the only one spouting absolute lies and anti-Russian rubbish about these aircraft carriers. Sadly, a very weak naive former colleague of mine from the virulently anti-Russian Henry Jackson Society has been getting into Twitter spat after Twitter spat against RT defending these British aircraft carrier pieces of garbage. When will the anti-Russian propaganda of Fallon and James Rogers of the Henry Jackson Society stop. If it were not for the superior strength, grit, determination, continuous effort and heroic courage of the Russian people exemplified most vividly during the Battle of Stalingrad the simple fact is the UK would be the smallest province in the Nazi Third Reich now. But then Rogers is not an academically professionally trained historian. Perhaps some people need to go back to university and do a history degree.

US Is Sending Another Aircraft Carrier To Korea: Yonhap

After carrying out bombing drills over the Korean peninsula on Monday following North Korea’s firing of an intermediate-range missile over the Japanese island of Hokkaido, US and South Korean forces are planning to continue their displays of military might early next month, according to a report from Yonhap, the South Korean news agency. However, in a move that is sure to provoke a barrage of threats from North Korea, the US is reportedly sending a nuclear-armed aircraft carrier to the waters off the Korean peninsula, where it will take part in an upcoming round of military drills.

Earlier this year, the US sent three aircraft carriers to waters near North Korea in an unprecedented show of force. However, it"s unclear if any of those carriers are still positioned so closely to the peninsula. Here"s the latest map of US naval strike groups, which was compiled by Stratfor using publicly-available information. Deployments considered "sensitive" would not be included on this map.

As Yonhap reports, the aircraft carrier will participate in a series of naval drills with South Korean forces. Yonhap didn’t reveal the name of the carrier. South Korea and the US will also conduct a “combined missile alert drill” in late September or early October, for which they will be joined by Japan, Yonhap said, citing a source in South Korea’s Ministry of Defense. The US is also expected to once again send B-1B strategic bombers stationed in Guam to Korea later this month in a warning to the North.

However, given UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s revelation that the UN Security Council may have reached the limits of its ability to economically pressure the isolated country, it’s understandable that the US would want to signal an escalation in its flexing of military muscle, to show. After all, the US needs to maintain the illusion that “military options” remain on the table. Even though, as former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon confirmed in an interview before he was ousted from the West Wing, there aren’t any options available to the US that wouldn’t lead to millions of civilian deaths in Seoul from conventional weapons fire.

US, Japanese and South Korean officials believe North Korea is “in the final stages” of developing a long-range ballistic missile that would be able to reliably strike the Continental US. The North believes obtaining such a weapon is essential to the regime"s survival, but the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea - which is already, in a sense, a reality - has horrified the international community.

According to Yonhap, the South Korean defense ministry expects the North to soon carry out more missile tests, as well as an expected seventh nuclear test.

To be sure, news of the aircraft carrier being sent to the waters around the Korean peninsula may remind readers of President Donald Trump’s promise to send a strike force of nuclear-armed submarines to the waters of the peninsula earlier this year, only for media reports to confirm that the submarines were, in fact, headed in the other direction.

Assuming the carrier is, in fact, headed to its reported post, such an act would be interpreted as an unprecedented provocation by Kim Jong Un and his generals, and likely demand a response in kind.

The Military Industrial Complex Is Undermining US National Security

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The ongoing problems with the F-35 and other military programs, stemming from virtually unlimited budgets, underline the inefficiency of the American military-industrial complex (MIC). In contrast, Moscow develops armaments capable of counteracting the latest technological advances of the US at minimal cost.

One of a state’s most insidious mechanisms is the inefficiency of the military-industrial sector. When looking at the world"s first superpower, this becomes all the more pronounced. Still, the ongoing problems highlighted by the F-35 program and failed missile interceptions by ABM systems are a good demonstration of how inefficiency in the US military sector has risen to worrying levels.

The main cause of these issues is related to the huge military-industrial complex that employs hundreds of thousands Americans directly or indirectly. The unhealthy composition of this power conglomerate often employs a revolving door involving politicians and board members from large arms-producing companies. This situation raises questions about corruption as well as a number of obvious conflicts of interest.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Congress is increasingly willing to grant what almost amount to blank checks to finance military budgets, numbering in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The second factor that impacts negatively on the efficiency of the MIC is the propaganda to which the entire American system is subjected. Looking at the example of think-tanks, they are all practically funded, directly or indirectly, by the military-related industries or foreign governments (especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel). The role of think-tanks is to influence policymakers, creating a common view between components of the (deep) state.

A problem arises when almost all experts and politicians participating in these Washington based think tanks come from federal agencies or industries tied to the military through contracts worth billions of dollars. Hardly offering any dissent from official or mainstream opinions on issue ranging from Russia to the F-35, politicians, experts and journalists all agree that Russia constitutes the main danger and that the F-35 program does not have any critical issues and is actually a superior weapon, two lies in full swing. Think-tanks and their guests promote an erroneous narrative that seeds, nourishes and sustains the problems and inefficiencies that beset military systems and Washington"s strategic vision. They offer no criticism, no change of policy, only echo chambers of lies and propaganda.

In addition to the think-tanks and the revolving doors involving board members of MIC companies and Congress and Senate members, a major problem concerns the timing of projects and the contemporary technological advancements of geopolitical opponents. The cost of projects such as the F-35, the ABM system, and the new supercarrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, have reached astronomical figures, following decades of development. The immediate consequences are the obsolescence of these systems once they come into service, especially when compared with weapon systems developed, or being developed, by countries such as China and especially Russia.

Despite the fact that US spending is unmatched in the world, amounting to about half of that of all countries combined, the weapons systems of competitors often cost less and are more efficient.

The survival of the MIC is inextricably tied to the US dollar and its role in the world as a reserve currency. With almost $700 billion a year worth of military spending, it is easy to reach a nationwide debt of over $21 trillion. The only way to sustain this kind of debt is due to the credibility of the dollar itself.

The reason why US treasury bills are considered safe and a great way for a foreign investor to diversify in long-term assets, despite $21 trillion of debt, is because of US credibility and the dollar’s status as reserve currency. The dollar, being the main global reserve currency, continues to be purchased by foreign countries to pay for commodities as well as for trade between each other. Just as the MIC warns breathlessly of all the dangers and threats through propaganda, resulting in enormous investments in unnecessary and obsolete weapon systems, the dollar is also printed by the Fed without any fear of devaluation or inflation risk, providing Washington with virtually unlimited funds for defense budgets and the ability to carry out massive wars. If you combine the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone and add to it the cost of the F-35, it amounts to more than $7 trillion. It is an almost incomprehensible figure that is at the same emblematic of how the global economic system is at the service of American warfare imperialism.

In response to this dysfunctional system, we find a diametrically opposite situation in Russia. With a budget that is about one-tenth that of the US, but with the need to keep pace with the world"s most powerful war machine (at least in terms of quantity; we can discuss quality at another time), Moscow has had to optimize costs to get the greatest possible benefits from its weapon systems. This has led to a much more logical management of the Russian military apparatus.

By carefully observing the most important American technological advances (fifth-generation aircraft like the F-35, new ICBMs and aircraft carriers), it is easy to discern two asymmetric strategies by Moscow, one defensive and other offensive.

With the defensive one, for each American action there is a corresponding Russian response. The F-35 and fifth-generation aircraft become easy targets thanks to complex systems such as the S-400, the future S-500, and cutting-edge radar technology. The Gerald Ford supercarrier becomes a simple target to hit if attacked by a Russian supersonic Zircon missile (ready to be put into production in 2018). The S-500s will also be able to intercept any kind of ICBM directed at Russian territory, thus succeeding in sealing Russian skies, a goal the United States is light years away from achieving.

In terms of offensive strategy, Moscow"s capabilities are even more impressive. Emphasis must be placed on the most effective system possible, the SS-28, better known as the Sarmat, a nuclear missile capable of modifying its own trajectory in descent, accelerating or decelerating, thus becoming impossible to intercept for American ABM systems. It is thought that the overall power of a single Sarmat missile (armed with up to 24 MIRVs) is likely to reduce to ashes an area as large as Texas or France. It is the ultimate deterrent weapon.

Other programs related to the development of fifth-generation aircraft or aircraft bombers (PAK-FA and PAK-DA) have slowed down to facilitate the upgrading of aircraft such as the Su-34 and Tu-160, with the Su-35 already within the category of 4++ generation. Such choices can only be made through an military-industrial system that favors the strategies of the nation and not that enrichment of individuals, corrupt shareholders or politicians.

Finally, an operating mix capable of providing defense or attack performance certainly involves cyberspace and, more generally, electronic warfare (EW). Of these systems we know little to nothing; they are secrets jealousy guarded by the Russian defense ministry. But from what many experts write, Moscow could be far ahead of their American colleagues in this field.

It is no exaggeration to say that the technological gap between Russia and the United States is being overcome by the need for Moscow to efficiently optimize its key weapons systems. The main problem for the United States concerns its maintenance of the status of military superpower. The continued issuance of dollar-denominated bonds, the use of the dollar as the main reserve currency, provokes a dangerous sequence that allows the US to print unlimited amounts of money, therefore being able to invest incredible amounts of money in old and vulnerable weapons systems.

The blatant squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of two decades, without anyone ever being held to account for it, has produced enormous damage to the reliability and effectiveness of most of the advanced American military systems and those still in the process of being developed. The military-industrial complex continues to spend large amounts of taxpayers" money without fulfilling the need for concrete or tangible results. Dozens of failed projects costing tens of billions of dollars have ended up allowing competitors to close the gap enjoyed by US military superiority.

A new era is opening up, one where the United States will no longer possess military and technical superiority over its geopolitical opponents in all domains. This will certainly bare consequences for Washington’s present and future strategy of power projection, possibly deterring the US from further engaging in failed policies, leaving countries completely destroyed and millions of lives lost.

Can Britain Afford To Be A Hard Power?

Authored by Matthew Jamison via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Recently the UK Royal Navy and Ministry of Defence unveiled their brand new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth at a cost of 3 Billion Pounds. This at a time when UK national finances are under heavy pressure and the country has been experiencing seven years of severe austerity.

It has recently come to light that in true Ministry of Defence fashion (poor project management & wasteful spending, duplication, poor planning, lack of oversight and accountability) the true costs are set to rocket even further for more aircraft needed to be able to land properly on HMS QE. How very British. The decision to go ahead with a brand new and very expensive aircraft carrier for the UK at a time of acute social and economic headwinds has been hailed by some as an exciting new weapon in Britain"s hard power arsenal that will allow Britain to «punch above her weight» in world affairs and global power projection rankings in Jane"s Weekly.

Some however question if Britain can really afford such an expensive project such as a new aircraft carrier when the Prime Minister Theresa May repeatedly said during the recent General Election that there was no magic money tree for nurses, police, firefighters, doctors, in essence all public sector workers – yet there is 1 Billion Pounds for the DUP and 3 Billion Pounds for a new aircraft carrier that perhaps given the cost and the reality of Britain"s position in the world could have been done without. The cost goes to the heart of the politics of reality and a realism that is sorely lacking in British foreign & defence policy. Can the country really afford such an object when 3 Billion Pounds could have been a major boost to a National Health Service under severe strain? Or imagine what 3 Billion Pounds could do to improve social housing? Or 3 Billion Pounds invested in a National Bank dedicated to helping the carers of those suffering from Alzheimer"s and/or Dementia?

The decision to go ahead with the HMS Queen Elizabeth exemplifies everything that is currently wrong and indeed utterly divorced from reality with the current Government. It goes to the heart over the debates surrounding what kind of country Britain really is, wants to be and should be. Is Britain in reality a strong, successful, competent hard military power with an indispensable, irreplaceable military role to play in world affairs as former Prime Minister Tony Blair would have the country believe with his vision of British foreign policy? Or is it a country with some sections of its public and establishment divorced from reality, still living in a bygone imperial era clinging tenaciously to a shameful period of time in British history and politico-cultural-militarist narratives that are just simply false?

Is it in reality a country with tremendous assets mainly within the soft power field of the arts and humanities such as language, culture, entertainment, acting, drama, academia, museums, libraries, sport, music as well as cutting edges in science, technology and engineering. However beyond that sphere of soft power the British have quite a mixed and mediocre record. The British economy is the most unproductive in the G7, one of the most unproductive economies in the OECD. British efficiency and rigour are substandard as is the work ethic to a great degree. Very little proper thought, planning and analysis goes into project management in Britain. The quality of good management and leadership in Britain is sorely lacking whether it be in the political, governmental, economic, or indeed military sphere. Nothing ever really works properly or functions correctly in Britain from its transport infrastructure, customer services, public services etc.

Which brings us back to the decision to build this aircraft carrier at such a huge cost in the first place. What is Britain trying to prove? Why must its Ministry of Defence spend billions upon billions of taxpayers money creating weapons of mass destruction, «boys toys», when there are so many internal problems in the country crying out for social and economic redress. Further more Britain has become a disruptive force in world affairs. It has steadily taken on the role of disruptor in what was seen as the traditional Western Alliance of North America and Europe. At this time of acute international challenges and turbulence in world affairs it is Britain which has become a major contributor to such turbulence and has added to the complexity of the problems facing the international community, not lessened those problems. With this new found role Britain must be treated accordingly. The British have sadly played up to all the worst stereotypes regarding Britain during this period and have demonstrated on a massive scale how unreliable, undependable and two faced they can be. All the brand new, multi-billion pound shiny aircraft carriers (that don"t even properly work once set out to sea) in the world will not be able to gloss over that fundamental truth of regarding the collective, national character.

Perhaps it is time for future British Governments to disabuse themselves of the vanity and pretentiousness that previous British Governments both Labour and Tory have exhibited regarding Britain"s military power. Perhaps it is time to face facts and come to terms with reality. Britain can have a significant role to play within the soft power sphere. But as a hard power, taking part in massive American led military interventions whether it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and allowing an incompetent and poorly governed Ministry of Defence to continually waste so much taxpayers money as if they had a guaranteed government/taxpayer «Magic Money Tree» must be brought to an end. Furthermore at this time of extreme economic and social challenges that Britain is facing it would be a very wise course of action indeed if Britain were to focus a lot more of its time, resources and energy on putting its own house in order rather than spending vast amounts of money on maintaining a non-essential, non-vital role as a very junior, supporting member of the American Western Alliance.

China Warns Japan: "Get Used To Our Warplanes", Sends Spy Ship Near Alaska

In an unexpectedly brazen rattling of sabers, just days after China deployed troops to its first foreign base in Djibouti, a move which the Global Times clarified is "about protecting its own security, not about seeking to control the world, Beijing made a less than subtle reversal, when it told Japan on Friday to "get used to it" after it flew six warplanes over the Miyako Strait between two southern Japanese islands in a military exercise.

It all started late on Thursday night, when Japan"s defense ministry issued a token statement describing the flyover by the formation of Xian H-6 bombers, also known as China"s B-52, earlier that day as "unusual", while noting that there had been no violation of Japanese airspace.

The flyover was hardly surprising: the Chinese navy and air force have been carrying out a series of exercises in the Western Pacific in recent month, both as they hone their ability to operate far from their home shores, as well as a trial balloon to gauge the reactions of their increasingly more nervous neighbors.

What made this flyover different, is that usually following a formal protest by the "offended" country, Beijing would take note and issue a token statement of its own, "neither admitting nor denying" guilt, but certainly without assurances of further transgressions. But not this time. On Friday the Chinese defense ministry said it was "legal and proper" for its military aircraft to operate in the airspace and that it would continue to organize regular training exercises according to "mission requirements."

In other words, Beijing pushed back against Japan"s complaint suggesting that China had not only done nothing wrong, but that this behaviour would escalate:

"The relevant side should not make a fuss about nothing or over-interpret, it will be fine once they get used to it," the ministry said in a statement.

Furthermore, the Miyako Strait is between Japan"s islands of Miyako and Okinawa, to the northeast of self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as its own.

It wasn"t just Japan: also on Thursday, Taiwan"s Ministry of National Defense said the Chinese bombers flew just outside its air defense identification zone and that it had "closely followed" the movements.

It is probably safe to assume that several more such close encounters, coupled an escalation in the harsh language - don"t expect Japan to back off diplomatically, especially not under Abe who militant ambitions are hardly secret - and a repeat of the tensions that erupted in 2013/2014 over territorial claims in the East China Sea, and which ended with diplomatic relations between China and Japan collapsing as well as nationalist sentiment in both China and Japan erupting, appears likely.

In a separate close encounter, at the same time that the US was conducting a succeeful THAAD-based intercept of a ballistic missile on Tuesday, a Chinese spy ship was lurking just 100 miles from Alaska"s coast to witness the said test for itself, Fox News reported. Furthermore, it was the first time the North American Aerospace Defense Command had seen this class of Chinese spy ship before near Alaska, an official told Fox News. The ship was spotted off the coast of Kodiak, on Alaska"s southern tip.

The THAAD test came after North Korea successfully test launched an alleged ICBM missile (this has subsequently been challenged with many claiming the missile was only intermediate range) that flew longer than any test conducted by Kim"s regime to date. Officials have said that Kim may now have the capability to strike Alaska. Prior to the test, both China and Russia have repeatedly demanded that the US remove its THAAD installations from South Korea over concerns that the balance of power in the Pacific Rim could shift, and destabilize the region.

China has sent warships to Alaska before, most famously in 2015 when former Barack Obama visited Alaska, China "greeted" him by sending five ships, while more recently a Chinese warship trailed a U.S. warship when it sailed earlier this month near a contested island in the South China Sea.

China also recently launched a new class of destroyer in Shanghai, which military experts say is on par with modern U.S. Burke class guided-missile destroyers. Furthermore, China now has roughly the same number of destroyers, cruisers and submarines as the U.S. Navy, according to new study from CNAS a Washington think tank.

In a separate naval adventure, China"s first fully functional aircraft carrier recently sailed near Taiwan after making a port call in Hong Kong that marked 20 years since the British handed the city over. The carrier was declared combat ready following initial tests in November. It does not, however, have advanced steam catapults to launch jets like a modern U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

It was not clear where the Chinese spy ship had moved to after its brief trip to the Alaska coast.

US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carriers Toward Korean Peninsula: Yonhap

According to a report by South Korea"s primary news outlet, Yonhap, the Pentagon has directed a total of three US aircraft carriers toward the Korean Peninsula, citing a South Korean government source.

Yonhap reports that in addition to the CVN-70 Carl Vinson, which is expected to arrive off the South Korean coast on April 25, the CVN-76 Ronald Reagan - currently in home port in Yokosuka, Japan - and the CVN-68 Nimitz carrier group - currently undergoing final pre-deployment assessment, Composite Training Unit Exercise off Oregon - will enter the Sea of Japan next week.  According to the senior government official. the US and South Korea are discussing joint drills, which will include the three aircraft carriers and other ships.

CVN-68 Nimitz carrier group

USS Carl Vinson, surrounded by a fleet of US warships, was sent by Washington toward the Korean Peninsula in the beginning of April.

While details are scarce, and we would urge confirmation from US-based sources, Yonhap also reports that according to the government source the operation of three aircraft carriers in the same location is unusual, and demonstrates the US commitment to North Korea.  Other sources said the Trump administration is demonstrating deterrence by acting on its behalf. "We expect it to be completely different from the previous administration."

On Sunday, Pyongyang launched an unidentified projectile, but the test reportedly failed. South Korea"s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) stated that the attempted launch was conducted from the area near North Korea"s eastern port city of Sinpo, but likely ended in a failure.

The most recent map showing key US naval deployments around the globe is shown below.

Taiwan Holds Military Drills Simulating Naval Invasion By China

Taiwan today sent the clearest message to China that it is taking deteriorating diplomatic relations with its estranged mainland cousin seriously, when the island nation began two days of military drills simulating an attack by China, in the wake of Beijing"s sailing of an aircraft carrier through the Taiwan Strait, as the government sought to reassure the public.

The island"s armed forces gathered in central Taiwan for annual drills that saw troops practise combat skills with tanks, attack helicopters and artillery. The drill was conducted in Taichung by the 10th Army Command and the Army Aviation and Special Forces Command. It simulated a scenario in which a Chinese naval fleet comprising destroyers, corvettes and amphibious assault ships was conducting training off China"s southeastern coast.

In the scenario, first reported by Taiwan"s China Post, the fleet unexpectedly sailed east across the hypothetical mid-line of the Taiwan Strait, and several helicopters also took off from the amphibious assault ships toward Taiwan"s air defense identification zone. In counteraction, the Army dispatched M109 self-propelled howitzers, M60A3 main battle tanks, CM-32 armoured vehicles, AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters, and OH-58D Kiowa armed reconnaissance helicopters to launch an attack upon the enemy forces, in collaboration with paratroopers descending from UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters.

"The military has active measures to deal with the situation in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea so the public can rest assured. We will enhance training 365 days a year," defence spokesman Chen Chung-chi said.

Soldiers held positions next to a US-made Avenger air defence missile system during the drill in central Taichung city as special forces moved in formation through woods and a tank set off smoke bombs and crushed a car.

The Taiwan drill is likely in response to a recent show of force by Beijing when China sailed its only aircraft carrier through the strait last week.  The Liaoning did not enter Taiwanese waters but went into an area covered by its air defence zone. Chinese military aircraft also passed near Taiwan on December 10 for the second time in less than a month.

In addition to the drills, the air force confirmed Tuesday an upgrade of Taiwan"s 143 F-16s was under way, with materials supplied by US aerospace company Lockheed Martin which manufactured the jets. "Taiwan is the first country in the world to upgrade the F-16 A/B fighters to F-16 V. We are enhancing our aerial capabilities to ensure national security," an air force official told AFP.

The government-funded project, codenamed "Phoenix Rising" has a budget of Tw$110 billion ($3.47 billion) and aims to be complete within the next six years. Defence minister Feng Shih-kuan has said the F-16 V could match China"s Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter, although Chinese media have dismissed this as an "illusion." The jets will be equipped with radar to detect stealth aircraft, as well as more advanced avionics and missiles, according to local media.

Minister Feng recently warned of growing threats from China and called for increased vigilance, urging the island"s youth to join the military.

China has yet to file an official response, which will most likely come in its nationalistic, state-owned, Global Times tabloid.