Plan Vs Usn

[Gtrof]

Well it seems Congress is getting antzy. So who is correct in this little dispute, Congress or Rummy. I don't agree with cutting one of CVNs, unless we are going to replace it. I don't think China is an immeint threat. They have four or five Sovemyea (Spelled wrong sorry) Destroyers with Sunburn missiles, but no ablity to invade Twaian and they still have older disel subs for the majority of their fleet.

 

I think the USN can handle the PLAN if they wanted to tango, although let me no if I'm wrong?

 

 

 

China's Military Moves Worry Lawmakers

 

1 hour, 43 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress

 

 

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan for the Navy calls for buying fewer ships, while China, a potential security hot spot, is increasing and repositioning its fleet. It's a prospect that concerns some lawmakers.

 

 

AFP/File Photo

 

 

 

The plan is contained in Bush's 2006 budget proposal, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday defended, saying the military was closely watching China's moves but that the U.S. Navy (news - web sites) remains the pre-eminent fleet.

 

 

"The United States Navy ... is the Navy on the face of the Earth that is a true blue water navy," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites). "On the other hand, when one looks at trend lines, it is something that we have to think about."

 

 

The Pentagon (news - web sites) says buying fewer ships than previously planned won't affect combat ability. Previous budgets envisioned purchasing six Virginia-class attack submarines, seven DD(X) destroyers and 10 San Antonio-class amphibious landing ships through 2011.

 

 

The 2006 budget calls for three submarines, five destroyers and nine landing ships. It also proposes eliminating one of the Navy's 12 aircraft carriers. Overall, Bush is proposing to increase the Pentagon's budget by $19 billion, to $419 billion next year. The budget calls for buying fewer planes, ships and submarines in favor of spending more on counterterrorism.

 

 

Republicans and Democrats argued that cutting back now could jeopardize the Navy's long-term domination of the seas, particularly in light of China's military improvements.

 

 

Lawmakers also worry that any reductions would cost them work and jobs at the nation's shipyards.

 

 

Republican Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), whose state of Maine is home to the Bath Iron Works, one of the Navy's largest ship builders, expressed her reservations to Rumsfeld.

 

 

"I recognize that our naval fleet still remains the most technologically advanced in the world. But the decreasing number of ships being procured, particularly in the light of the Chinese buildup, really concerns me," she said.

 

 

"Are you concerned about projections that the Chinese fleet may well surpass the American fleet in terms of numbers in just a decade's time?"

 

 

"Senator," Rumsfeld replied, "it is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to."

 

 

One of Rumsfeld's top aides, Douglas Feith, echoed the secretary's views in an appearance later Thursday before the Council on Foreign Relations, a private think tank.

 

 

Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, singled out China as among "important powers in the world," whose strategic choices will influence U.S. national security.

 

 

"Of the new powers that are rising ... the country that can be expected to have the greatest effect on international relations is China," Feith said.

 

 

China has invested heavily in its own defense in the past few years. Prohibited from buying U.S. and European arms under an embargo, Beijing purchased at least $13 billion worth of weapons from Russia between 1993 and 2003, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. China's arsenals now are stocked with Russian-made submarines, destroyers, supersonic fighters and anti-ship missiles, as well as weapons it increasingly is making on its own.

 

 

CIA (news - web sites) Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week that China last year increased its ballistic missile forces across the strait dividing Taiwan from the mainland and rolled out several new submarines there.

 

 

"Improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region," Goss said.

 

 

 

 

 

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan responded to Goss's comments in a report Friday by state media as an "irresponsible act" that "has severely violated the conventions of international relations.

 

Kenneth Lieberthal, an expert on China at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said China was probably still two decades away from U.S. military capability.

 

"But its rate of improvement has really changed a lot in the past few years," Lieberthal said.

 

China is trying to persuade the European Union (news - web sites) to lift the 15-year-old arms embargo so it can access European technology. Earlier this month, the House strongly condemned the European Union's plans to comply.

 

And, Rumsfeld said this week that China is moving its naval vessels farther from its shores.

 

Rep. Randy Forbes (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., told Rumsfeld during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday that he recently returned from China with "a big concern" about the U.S. fleet after he witnessed China's naval buildup.

 

"We looked at their steel mills," Forbes said. "They're throwing out steel as fast as you can watch it; running it 24 hours a day."

[Manic Moran]

Chinese navy is still currently pretty much a coastal defense force. Most of the sea-going vessels are obsolescent, and though they are now getting a few first-rate ships of the line (Sovremennyy, and I think Udaloy) for example, they've got quite a way to go before they can really threaten anyone. There's also the severe lack of sealift ability to project ground forces.

 

NTM

[Josh]

The PLAN is at least a couple decades away from being about to go toe-to-toe with the USN and survive, IMO. Currently their entire force would have a hard time resisting a well handled CVBG, and I'm not aware of any programs they are running that are revolutionary in nature or prolific enough in numbers that will change this situation in any time frame, let alone 2011 as the article is discussing.

[swerve]

China is now the third biggest shipbuilding country in the world, after Japan & S. Korea. It builds well over 10 times the tonnage per year that the USA does, & the ratio's increasing fast. China could build a vast fleet of armed merchant ships very quickly, but that's a long, long, way from being able to build modern warships able to take on the US navy. Think sensors & weapons - China's a long way behind in both. Building a big fleet right now would merely provide more targets.

[Daniel Papp]

I just managed to link some bits together:

 

1/ the PLAN is in need of modernization

2/ now they can buy only from Russia

3/ they have a sh!tload of money

4/ the EU is openly advertising to lift the arms embargo

 

Now I cannot imagine military hardware that China needs as desperately as a few decent ships, if even not the latest generation.

[swerve]

Now I cannot imagine military hardware that China needs as desperately as a few decent ships, if even not the latest generation.

 

Hulls they can build, much cheaper than importing & probably faster. Even if it's something they haven't built before, they can probably do it fine as long as they have the plans (e.g. a nice Dutch-designed LSD or French-designed LPD or Italian frigate), just a bit slower. Equipment fit is what they can't do to the quality required.

Edited February 18, 2005 by swerve

[JOE BRENNAN]

A few opinion/observations:

-the real challenge from China is a ways out so things like stretching to keep 40 yr old carriers active a few more years (USS JFK) is not addressing it. People may use "China threat" as a club to promote that, but it doesn't make much sense.

 

-even though "a ways" out it takes "awhile" to change the course of military procurement policy and critically, to rebuild industrial base and expertise (inside and outside the military) you let go by the boards. US military policy is at risk of focusing too much on fighting the soon-to-be last war, Iraq. Follow ons in WOT, due to the semi-debacle there, are extremely unlikely to involve occupying large countries. They won't be CVBG wars, but they won't be large Army/USMC wars either. Whereas the eventual China challenge *will* be naval and aerospace, whereas confronting China on the Asian mainland, implying a large long term future role for large US land forces (smaller ones do have *some* long term role) will remain the definition of strategic idiocy. Bottonline: it's critical to maintain continuity in the ability for the US to create high quality naval (and again aerospace) power.

 

-As China's economy becomes similar in size and eventually bigger than that of the US (as it probably will) push will to come to shove on our very inefficient procurement practices and sky high personnel costs. For example the multiple it costs us now to build a basic warship hull compared to them will be more of problem when China gets to the point of being closer to equal in what goes into the hull if a similar cost multiple prevails on that too and can potentially have an equal defence budget. This will be a different challenge than the economically rotten Soviet Union.

 

Joe

Edited February 18, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[swerve]

Joe,

 

an admirably succinct summation.

 

Paul

 

PS. re the relative size of US/Chinese economies. If current trends continue (obviously, an uncertain thing - IMO it's more likely that Chinese growth will slow down a bit), Chinese GDP in real terms is likely to surpass that of the USA by 2020.

 

[based on the downward-adjusted Chinese growth rates used by Angus Maddison. Current Chinese GDP at purchasing power parities is well enough agreed on that it's true whichever of the respectable estimates is used]

[Scott Cunningham]

US Navy is in NO way threatened by the Red Chinese Navy. A lot of hulls just means a shi&tload of scrap metal on the seabottom.

 

This sounds like a desperate plea for additional naval funding.

[crobato]

Here is one of those old Chinese coastal vessels.

 

[Chris Werb]

I think Joe (as always) is spot on.

 

In the short term it will be quite easy to prevent PLAN being any kind of long range threat.

 

Firstly they don't have the kind of RAS/UNREP capable fleet train that the US and British navies have, so they're not going anywhere far away.

 

If they do head for the open ocean, the US superiority in SSNs will stop them in their tracks.

 

In a few years time the US will have AMSTE and inmage recognition capabilities built into virtually every standoff weapon making it possible to salvo relatively cheap weapons that will cost-effectively saturate any enemy AD system and hit every target, every time (or as near as damn it). One B-2 could put 80 500lb bombs on target for a net cost of around $25k each. Whilst this could sink an entire PLAN CVBG, just think what those same weapons could do to their economy.

 

The Chinese are playing a long game. They won't be a real convemtional threat for at least another twenty years. By then, with westernised standards of living, they will hopefully feel they have far too much to lose to think about kicking-off.

[Swift Sword]

Let us reconsider the issue a little bit. The USN is superior to the PLAN in that the Pacific Ocean is essentially an American bathtub that is full of dangerous toys controlled by Washington. However, it might be argued that the PLAN's primary force projection requirements could be fit into a MINIMUM box of, say, between 0 and 25 North latitude and 45 and 135 East longitude. How does this change the equation?

[lucklucky]

I think it would be very dificult for PLAN to fight effectively the US SSNs, they are the main threat to the PLAN navy near shore. I doubt US would put too much risk to the carriers in a Taiwanese scenario.(i mean that i dont see US putting the carriers between mainland and Taiwan for example).

[gewing]

US Navy is in NO way threatened by the Red Chinese Navy. A lot of hulls just means a shi&tload of scrap metal on the seabottom.

 

This sounds like a desperate plea for additional naval funding.

146860[/snapback]

 

 

I agree, BUT...

 

other than air delivered bombs, how many anti-ship weapons does the Navy REALLY have?

 

The VLS cells of our ships are afaik never full, we don't have enough anti-ship missiles to fill them if we wanted to. Subs carry torpedos, but...

 

HOPEFULLY, you can re-assure me that enough hulls wouldn't overwhelm our capabilities.

[Fritz]

Why would China want to fight it's biggest trade partner?

[jakec]

Why would China want to fight it's biggest trade partner?

147306[/snapback]

 

 

Because the US is likely to come to the defence of Taiwan, which China claims as a lost province.

[lucklucky]

Why would China want to fight it's biggest trade partner?

 

It's not a good defense politics to base assumptions on a logic that potential adversary might not share. Ex: Falklands, Koweit

 

In case of a conflict over Taiwan i think that Chinese would try to reach a fait acompli earlier as possible. That mean an heavy bombardment and sabotage in first hours, taking governement out in a kamikaze mission , and with a swarm of airborne and seaborne troops. I wouldnt be surprised if they'll take a page over Dunkirk with thousands of little ships. Without governement and much resistance there are no reason for a US sea blockade. Of course the backlash could be S.Korea and Japan with nukes and Philiphines, Vietnam very nervous...

[gewing]

Why would China want to fight it's biggest trade partner?

147306[/snapback]

 

 

Wasn't France Germany's largest trading partner before BOTH world wars?

[Josh]

I agree, BUT...

 

other than air delivered bombs, how many anti-ship weapons does the Navy REALLY have?

 

147303[/snapback]

 

SSN's carry from 20+ mk 48's. Earlier Burks and Ticos carry as many as 8 Harpoons in canisters, plus all the SM-2's are surface to surface weapons as are RIM-77's. Hornets, S-3's, and P-3's can carry 4, 2, and 8 Harpoons respectively. A wealth of other stand off ordnance is also available, from Skippers to SLAMs to Peguin. The PLAN has nothing like the area and point defense or ECM to counter that kind of smack. Quite likely the PLAN would be coral reef far before anyone bothered to send B-2's after them, at least for the next several decades.

 

The only real question is, when the PRC's economy exceeds the US's, what happens then? Are we on the receiving end of the military overstretch we fed the USSR?

[James1978]

SSN's carry from 20+ mk 48's. Earlier Burks and Ticos carry as many as 8 Harpoons in canisters, plus all the SM-2's are surface to surface weapons as are RIM-77's. Hornets, S-3's, and P-3's can carry 4, 2, and 8 Harpoons respectively.  A wealth of other stand off ordnance is also available, from Skippers to SLAMs to Peguin.

I suppose the question then becomes how many AGM-84s does the US have in inventory and how many does a US CVBG typically carry these days.

 

On a related note, I thought the AGM-123 'Skipper' was phased out in the mid 1990s and that the USN only bought a few hundred Penguins for use on SH-60s.

[pluto77189]

considering what advances are being made with inertial guidance, and GPS, I think we'll have more than enough anti-ship weapons to sink every ship on earth. Remember that test last year with the B-52 and the modified Jdam's?

 

They were simple 2,000lb bombs with a modified seeker package, designed to hit moving targets. It used a combination of GPS and inertial guidance(and what else?), along with targeting radar(to get in in the vicinity of the target) to hit the ship.

 

They also had a Jdam tested that struk a moving truck. That's pretty impressive. Ability to hit a moving target without having to maintain a laser spot.

 

Just like we're using old dumb bombs to hit ground targets, we'll be able to have simple gravity bombs do the same for ships. And ships move a lot slower than ground targets.

 

The B2 can carry 192 sdb's, or 80 500lb jdams. If they could implement the anti-ship package on even the 500lb bombs... Just imagine what destruction a pair of B2's could wreck on an enemy fleet. Just 2 bombers could hit 20 ships with 8 bombs each ship. If they can stick that on the SDB's, it becomes even worse. They would make nasty anti ship weapons. Maybe not big enough a bang to sink the biggest capital ship, but then again, maybe so. If they can penetrate 8 feet of reinforced concrete, they can penetrate a ship through the bottom. Even if they can't sink it, any ship getting peppered with a dozen or so armor piercing 250lb bombs isn't going to be doing much effective fighting. Not unless they decide to get into battleship class armor.

 

I think the B1 will be able to carry(in theory) even more than 192 Sdb's. The B-52 slightly less.

[Josh]

Free fall bombs work but require the firing platform to come into medium SAM range. Though perhaps with the 'long shot' add on 1000lb and GP bombs can be used with JDAM kits and terminal homing to achieve stand-off kills. I think the USN's ability to sink every major ship on earth as it stands now is pretty well established, though the magazines would be pretty dry in the end. It seems certain the PLAN could be sunk a dozen times over with what is in inventory now.

[tankerwanabe]

I thought that it was interesting that there weren't more concern over this PRC threat other than the senator from Maine who's state will be receiving the biggest contracts. Smells like pork-barrel politics.

 

Loved to have seen Rummy's face considering the fact that he downsized the army in anticipation that future wars will be with smaller nations. Now he's asked to turn 180 and build up an expensive program for a super-power confrontation.

 

If we go the super military build up, and China remains aimed at her economic goals, don't we look more like the Soviets and the Chinese look more like us during the cold war? If the potential super-power confrontation never takes place... well we're screwed.

 

By the way, when was the last time the Chinese expanded outward? They've been having a little problem with internal control for about ... 500 years, because of their massive population.

 

Just my 2 cents on my first post.

[jakec]

Before the 1870s when had Germany last expanded outward, or Japan for that matter. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns as the investment handbooks say.

 

The real question IMHO is how, short of a military hedging strategy can the West be guaranteed that a China with a US sized economy won't become stroppy. Lets not forget that of all the potential great powers of the 21st Century, China is the only one with territorial disputes with all its neighbours (including Russia, Japan, India, Vietnam, Korea, and Taiwan of course). Spend a little time on Chinese BBS and you will see that the tech savvy urban male elite has not forgotten the "unequal treaties" of the 19th Century and the loss of Qing lands. Take a look at the map of the Qing Empire at its peak - it includes large swaths of what is currently Russia, Mongolia, Korea and Vietnam, as well as various Central Asian 'stans. In the Chinese perception, a lot of these lands were "stolen" while China was weak and divided. It does not take a great leap to see that today's fascination with gaining the return of the "lost province" of Taiwan and cementing the occupation of Tibet could potentially be applied with equal ferocity to other Qing lands when China is strong.

 

Agreed today's Chinese leaders are pre-occupied with internal strengthening and national development. So were Germany's leaders prior to 1890, when a change of leadership brought an abrupt shift in policy. That shift, combined with Germany's new industrial muscle created a formidable problem for the neighbourhood. But from the German point of view, all they wanted was their "place in the sun" and status commensurate with their economic power. China still perceives itself as relatively weak, and deliberately aims to keep its head down for twenty years until national power is built up. Then we'll all get to see who was right.

[Gabe]

Germany had to seek "place under the sun" by force because Napoleon III declared war on them to prevent the inevitable Germany unification. After that, Bismark became a rockstar and any hope for accomodation went out the window.