« Piracy - The Simple Yet Impossible Solution Part II | Main | Easter Sunday »
April 11, 2009
American Dominance of the Seas Under Threat
It's worth revisiting the issue of China as a potential adversary in the wake of this week's release of President Obama's first defense budget. One of my biggest problems with the budget is that it seems to be focusing around building a military that's mostly suited to fighting insurgencies. While surely this is something we will need to do, we need to be ready for all contingencies.
A military force that's out of balance can get itself into trouble. I remember years ago reading Chaim Herzog's account of the 1973 Yom Kippur War in his book The Arab-Israeli Wars (1982 edition). One reason the Israelis had gotten into so much trouble during the early days of the war was that they "overlearned" the lessons of the 1967 Six Day War. Airpower had been so decisive in 1967 that they cut back on traditional gun artillery and thought they could use their new American aircraft as "flying artillery." What they didn't count on was the effectiveness of of the Egyptian AA system, recently bolstered by Soviet SA-2 and SA-3 surface to air missiles. Soviet made AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missiles were also more deadly against Israeli tanks than had been imagined. They lost many aircraft and tanks before recouping and eventually winning the day. But for awhile it was a near run thing.
We pretty much knew how a conventional and even nuclear war with Soviet Russia would turn out. We knew what weapons we'd need. We weren't well prepared for Vietnam, not having quite the right weapons to fight it.
The lesson of today is that we just don't know who we might have to fight. But one adversary we may well have to fight is China, and while we're cutting back on our air and naval forces, they're building aircraft and ships like there's no tomorrow.
Let's start out with an excerpt from an article in Wednesday's Weekly Standard by Michael Mazza, a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.
The future of America's long-running dominance of the seas is under threat. The Department of Defense reported recently that the Chinese navy is continuing to modernize at a rapid clip. It is adding guided missile destroyers and nuclear and diesel-electric attack submarines to its fleet, and is developing over-the-horizon radars and next-generation anti-ship cruise missiles, and possibly even the first ever anti-ship ballistic missile. Not only have Chinese ships recently harassed unarmed U.S. naval vessels in the South China Sea, but according to reports emanating from Japan, China will likely complete construction on two conventional aircraft carriers by 2015, and will begin construction on two more nuclear carriers in 2020....it is important to consider the downsides of China's future naval plans. Protection of China's merchant fleet is certainly not the PLA Navy's only reason for building carriers and deploying ships far outside its territorial waters. China is acting to alter the balance of power in Asia and working to diminish U.S. presence in the region. The PLA has engaged in a significant build-up over the past twenty years. China's Air Force is on pace to have the largest air fleet in the region within the next decade. Their navy is developing blue-water capabilities, deploying new submarines at an unparalleled rate, and, now, is determined to add aircraft carriers to its fleet. And the PLA has modernized and grown its strategic conventional and nuclear missile force. In short, China is developing considerable power projection capabilities at a time when it faces no discernable external threats.
Right now only the U.S. and French navies possess serious aircraft carriers, and the latter only has one. As noted in the article, aircraft carriers are used for power projection. Other surface combatants are force protection with limited projection capabilities. So if all China wanted to do was protect their merchant marine fleet and petroleum supplies from Somalia, destroyers and frigates would be sufficient.
The Chinese goals are simple; one, achieve hegemony in the south-western Pacific, and two, acquire Taiwan. There are many reasons they want to dominate the area, but they include national pride, dislike of America as the world power, and to acquire and secure economic assets. Indeed, it was in late December that for the first time in modern history, China sent warships abroad to secure their interests in Somalia. They are a nation on the move.
Why Should We Care?
It is in our national interest that Chinese influence not spread. The reason for this is that one of if not our prime foreign policy goals should be to the spread of liberty. Under the current Chinese government, the values that they will spread are antithetical to ours. As such, they should be resisted.
We must also protect our friends. Countries must know that an alliance with the United States means more than just words. If they go out on a limb for us we have to be there to help them as well. It's not that we should foot everyone's defense bill, more that we cannot abandon allies to the mercies of powerful nations like China.
In addition there is old fashioned protection of our various economic interests, which yes include petroleum from the Middle East and elsewhere. No matter what we do on the alternative energy front, we're going to need foreign oil for a long time. Further, it is in our economic interests to protect general shipping from everything from pirates to unfriendly nations.
FAS and More
One of the best overviews of the Chinese military is at the Federation of American Scientists. Their page on the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)is not to be missed. See, for example, their page on the new Type 039 Wuhan C, or "Song," class submarine, in which they state that it
...is said to be as quiet as the American Los Angles nuclear submarines. But its overall performance is constrained by the use of 1980s technology, and the fact that the PLAN purchased the Russian Kilo-class submarines suggests that there are problems with the Song-class. Various upgrades to the Song are reported under development, and an improved version may have already entered service.
So while we shouldn't overrate PLAN forces, neither should we ignore them. As with Iranian and North Korean missiles, they're not there yet, but not for want of trying.
Almost as good is StrategyPage, which has an excellent database of navies from around the world.
I've gone over China's military in much more detail elsewhere so won't repeat it all here; see "China / Taiwan" under "Categories" at right.
Winning Without War
Finally, like any nation, China can achieve it's objectives even if there is no war. Bill Gertz, writing in the Washington Times, tells us the inside story of what happened with the harassment of the USNS Impeccable last month:
A U.S. defense official said the recent confrontation between five Chinese military vessels and the USNS Impeccable, an ocean survey ship, in the South China Sea resulted in the setting of a bad legal precedent for the Navy's freedom of navigation in international waters.According to the official, who spoke on condition that he not be named because of the political sensitivity of the issue, the Impeccable's captain withdrew from the area rather than hold fast and assert the ship's freedom-of-navigation rights. Worse, the captain also radioed one of the five Chinese naval vessels to ask permission of the Chinese navy to exit the area.
Both steps were viewed as weakening U.S. Navy efforts to assert the right to transit international waters freely and to counter Chinese claims to a 200-mile economic exclusion zone claimed by Beijing as sovereign territory.
Beijing claims the entire South China Sea as its territorial waters.
The U.S. defense official said the Chinese harassment was part of what has been termed legal warfare, or "lawfare," the use of international laws to try to deny access to areas near coasts by foreign ships and aircraft.
The official said it is important for the Navy not to give in to such harassment because of the risks of limiting freedom of navigation, which is a vital interest for both the United States and its allies in Asia.
Remember that the Chinese are students of their own Sun Tzu, who about 2,500 years ago said
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
And as Karl von Clausewitz said
"When one force is a great deal stronger than the other, an estimate may be enough. There will be no fighting: the weaker side will yield at once. . . Even if no actual fighting occurs . . . the outcome rests on the assumption that if it came to fighting, the enemy would be destroyed."
The military budget proposed by President Obama and SecDef Gates sacrifices our Navy for counterinsurgency weapons, while both are important and needed. They would reduce our aircraft carrier fleet from 11 to 10, and 11 is way too low as it is. The next generation cruisers would be delayed, and the overall number of ships reduced to below 300. No more F-22 Raptors will be produced. All of this sends the wrong message to China.
Posted by Tom at April 11, 2009 9:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1321
Comments
They would reduce our aircraft carrier fleet from 11 to 10, and 11 is way too low as it is. The next generation cruisers would be delayed, and the overall number of ships reduced to below 300. No more F-22 Raptors will be produced. All of this sends the wrong message to China.
You have only presented one side of this comparison, though. What would be a resonable project for the number of serious carriers China could put into service over the next, 5, 10, and 15 years? How do those carriers compare to ours (equal or will one of the carriers they are planning to launch be 50% of one of ours?
It is very clear from the fabled 'last war' that counterinsurgency ability is greatly needed. As the adage about always fighting the last war warns us, we should be aware that there is a good chance the next war may come from an unexpected direction. Does the upgrade of China's ability, which is nothing all that new, merit a dramatic increase in our ability or does it simply require us to keep our eye on it? We also have to keep in mind that almost certainly all thse plans were made before the depression hit. With exports slumping will China hold to these plans or seek to divert resources to maintaining and improving internal consumption?
Posted by: Boonton at April 13, 2009 2:38 PM
I ended up here via circuitous circumstances after reading Mazza's latest Chinese "article" (why we should fear the "string of pearls" policy). Interestingly, little can be found about AEI contributors, must be because they're hiding behind alias in their retorfitted missile silos... a familiar them, the miasma of Fear.
Anyway, a common thread here: as our GDP shrinks (compared to China) and as their military spending as a percentage of GDP increases, we must spend ever more on our military... until what, 50% of GDP? Cut back entitlements so we can maintain our global footprint (I played a lot of Dungeons and Dragons in my youth, too, but that hasn't prepaed me to face the AARP lobbyists).
Vietnam was lost because we had the wrong weapons? That's a doozie. I'm sure that's how the Russian's console themselves about Afghanistan. If only i had a kevlan line, I would have hauled in that 100# Chinook, etc.
Anyway, I found a much cheaper solution: marrying into the gene pool. America has always been about the quick buck, not being the last man holding the bag, etc. I play to follow the smart money and let our testosterone-addled underclass carry the guns and flags. Dominion and beggar-thy-neighbor will sting when the shoe is on the foot, unless you have two feet...
But otherwise, what's the worst that will happen when the Chinese re-introduce a multi-polar world? Less fat around American necks, more protein in the Chinese diet? I can live with that. My kids will probably care less. But I imagine it will be painful for some (mostly older, paler, "male-r") to come to terms with the idea that the American sun is setting.
But above all, let's remain agreeable...
Posted by: mark p miller at April 23, 2010 5:23 PM
Thank you, both, for stopping by.
Boonton - Excellent points. Re your first paragraph, no doubt that even over the next 20 years PLAN forces will be able to field no more than 2 carriers. Assuming we proceed with the F-35 fighter and Gerald R Ford class of carriers, we'll have the qualitative edge on them.
However, remember that we must cover the entire world with our navy, whereas the Chinese can concentrate theirs in the south-west Pacific. Further, they can keep theirs within range of their land-based aircraft to provide additional protection, whereas ours will be operating much farther from the nearest friendly base.
Love your second paragraph. Ditto on the need for counterinsurgency, and the ability to be on the lookout for the asymmetrical threat. But by the same token let's not assume that we'll be fighting insurgencies or asymmetrically in all future wars. I don't think we need a dramatic increase in our abilities, we just need a slight increase and the need to follow through on building weapons already in the pipeline like the F-35, G R Ford class of carriers, and Virginia class subs. I don't know what China will do as a result of the current economic downturn but I would like to hear your thoughts.
mark p miller - I cannot find much to compliment in your screed.
"little can be found about AEI contributors, must be because they're hiding behind alias in their retorfitted missile silos... a familiar them, the miasma of Fear."
A juvenile cheap shot.
"we must spend ever more on our military... until what, 50% of GDP?"
A straw man argument.
"Cut back entitlements so we can maintain our global footprint"
We need to slow the growth of existing programs and stop adding new ones primarily so that we don't go broke at home. Yes, spending on defense will suffer if we keep spending at our current rate. I see this as a problem, you obviously do not.
"Vietnam was lost because we had the wrong weapons?"
Another straw man argument. I never said that "Vietnam was lost because we had the wrong weapons," but that "We weren't well prepared for Vietnam, not having quite the right weapons to fight it," a different argument entirely. In other words, we would have done better if we had different weapons at our disposal. That doesn't mean we would have won, and I never implied that we would.
"what's the worst that will happen when the Chinese re-introduce a multi-polar world? Less fat around American necks, more protein in the Chinese diet?"
Ha ha. No, I'm rather more worried about a totalitarian giant imposing it's values (ones I trust you find antithetical to yours) around the world.
"But I imagine it will be painful for some (mostly older, paler, "male-r") to come to terms with the idea that the American sun is setting"
Now you're race baiting.
Try leaving a serious comment next time.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at April 24, 2010 1:46 PM
