'While under Japanese law , Japan cannot provide weapons to nations involved in armed conflict, like the US —there is a loophole for “special circumstances”'.
Trumps bulwark against China and the BRICs goes back to the July 1973 founding of the Trilateral Commission by David Rockefeller and directed by geopolitical warhawk zbigniew brzezinsky.
The conventionally powered Chinese aircraft carriers can comfortably remain at sea 3-4 weeks (45 days at the outside). I don't know that they have the ability for full replenishment when under way. Figure a week to get into position at the outside as tensions build prior to a surge. That places a clear anticipated limit on how long those carriers can support a blockade.
All aircraft carriers, nuclear or not, must take on aircraft fuel and supplies, at sea. The Chinese have a fleet of fast oilers and supply ships-- AND in the case of Taiwan, they are close to home. Keep in mind the allies huge fleet off Japan in 1945 -- all supplied at sea. The advantage of a nuclear-powered ships is global power projection
'While under Japanese law , Japan cannot provide weapons to nations involved in armed conflict, like the US —there is a loophole for “special circumstances”'.
Like "we want to".
Trumps bulwark against China and the BRICs goes back to the July 1973 founding of the Trilateral Commission by David Rockefeller and directed by geopolitical warhawk zbigniew brzezinsky.
https://quickshare.samsungcloud.com/cFDV3hZ5y1Pr
"But Trump has made it clear that its traditional allies cannot count on the US to defend them, not unless the pay for it".
Japan is an ally of the USA? And here was I thinking it was a crushed, humbled, defeated, atom-bombed tributary nation.
Actually, the USA has no friends and no allies. Just slaves and designated enemies.
Your last paragraph is dead on!
Agree.
The Eye on China... Thank you for this excellent Geo-commercial upgrade Julian.
Cassandra
The conventionally powered Chinese aircraft carriers can comfortably remain at sea 3-4 weeks (45 days at the outside). I don't know that they have the ability for full replenishment when under way. Figure a week to get into position at the outside as tensions build prior to a surge. That places a clear anticipated limit on how long those carriers can support a blockade.
All aircraft carriers, nuclear or not, must take on aircraft fuel and supplies, at sea. The Chinese have a fleet of fast oilers and supply ships-- AND in the case of Taiwan, they are close to home. Keep in mind the allies huge fleet off Japan in 1945 -- all supplied at sea. The advantage of a nuclear-powered ships is global power projection
"Mogami", eh? How are the mighty fallen! The IJN cruiser "Mogami" was something else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Mogami_(1934)
Displacement
8,500 tons (official, initial)
13,670 tons (final)
Length
197 metres (646 ft) (initial)
198 metres (650 ft) (final)
Beam
18 metres (59 ft) (initial)
20.2 metres (66 ft) (final)
Draught
5.5 metres (18 ft) (initial)
5.89 metres (19.3 ft) (final)
Propulsion
4-shaft geared turbines
10 Kampon boilers
152,000 shp (113,000 kW)
Speed
37-knot (69 km/h) (initial)
35.5 knots (65.7 km/h) (final)
Range 8,000 nmi (15,000 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h)
Complement 850
Armament
(final)[1]
6 × 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval guns[2] (3x2)
8 × 12.7 cm/40 Type 89 naval gun (4×2)
30 × Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun guns
12 × Type 93 torpedoes (4 × 3 tube rotating launchers + 12 reloads)
Armor
Belt 100–125 mm (3.9–4.9 in)
Deck 35–60 mm (1.4–2.4 in)
Turret 25 mm (0.98 in)
Aircraft carried
(initial) 3 x Kawanishi E7K floatplanes, replaced by Mitsubishi F1M & Aichi E13A from 1941
(final) 11 floatplanes; 3 x Mitsubishi F1M, 8 x Aichi E13A