The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia - 2005 UPDATE

JEFFHEAD.COM ^ | March 7, 2005 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

THE RISING SEA DRAGON IN ASIA
2005 Update
By Jeff Head, February 2005


As an update to the original "Rising Sea Dragon in Asia", that I publiushed in January of 2004 (and have been writing and warning about since 2000), I offer this update, dated in February of 2005. This report is fairly short and broad, and I believe does not contain the detail necessary to reflect the true scope of the emerging threat. But it does clearly indicate the nature and size of the current Red Chinese buildup, and their is only one principle power that such a buildup can be directed at, the United States military.

Regarding the continuing naval buildup, the Chinese have already built and launched two of the brand new, very modern, Aegis type Lanzhou Class destroyers, two of the new Guangzhou Class guided missile destroyers, two new Ma'anshan Class guided missile frigates, four of the new large Type 73 Amphibious Assault ships (that's right, four in a very short time frame and more building...can you guess what these are inded for?), and a class of very modern diesle-electric attack subs. In addition, the west has now seen another new class, dubbed the Type 51C that was just launched in December of 2005 in the Dalian, Liaoning Province. Another area air defense destroyer similar to the Type 52C, Lanzho class, this new class is similar in appearance to the Arleigh Burke class original batch destroyers, and is based on the late 1990's Luhai class hull.. It has an Aegis type air defense capability, but no helo facilities, while the two new Type 52C's are similar to the Arliegh Burke Batch IIA ships, with onboard helicopter landing and housing facilities.

All of this is in addition to acquiring four very modern and capable Hangzhou Class destroyers from Russia and a total of twelve very modern Russian diesel-electric subs, as well as currently building their own new and modern classes of nuclear attack subs and ballistic missile submarines, along with continuing heavy research into aircraft carrier design and/or refitting.

The efforts continue unabated as the Red Chinese continue to build or aquire these EIGHT new classes of ships simultaneously at a rapid pace. Eight new classes of ships at once represents a HUGE outlay in technology and capital across the board. It is almost unheard of and is representative of the massive arms build-up the Red Chinese are embarked upon with their new found wealth. If continued, it can have but one goal in mind, a direct challenge for naval dominance in the Pacific Rim and beyond. As stated, that challenege is a direct one to the United States Navy.

In the mean time, the Chinese are also modernizing their naval air forces at a rapid pace, acquiring or license building hundreds of modern SU-27, SU-27SK, and SU-30 aircraft from Russia, many with very credible strike at sea, air to surface missile capabiulities. They are also building their own new J-10 aircraft. Within the past two to three years these efforts represent a quantum leap in terms of the quality of the Red Chinese equipment and the rate at which they are being built or otherwise put into service.

Here are some recent pics.

The brand new construction and launch of the area air defense, Aegis-like, Type 51C Class destroyer.


The new Lanzhou Class (Type 52C) Aegis-like destroyer. 1st commissioned in July 2004, second in service in early 2005.


The new Guangzhou Class (Type 52B) Guided Missile Destroyer. 1st commissioned in July 2004, second in service in early 2005.


The new Hangzhou Class (Type 951/EM) guided missile destroyers. Four acquired from Russia in the last five years, two already in service, two more in 2005. They carry the Russian Sunburn or Moskit cruise missiles, designed to attack US Aircraft Carriers.


The new Ma'anshan Class (Type 054) Guided Missile frigates. Two launched in late 2003, will be in service in early 2005.


Two of the new Type 73 Amphibious Assault Ship class, of which three have already been built.


The new Yuan Class SSK diesel/electric attack submanrine.


The new Russian acquired Kilo Class SSK diesle/electric attack submarines, of which four have been acquired and EIGHT MORE are on order.


Coninued outfitting of the former Russian Vayrag at the Dalian shipyards.


Red Chinese SU-30 and SU-27SK (J11) and SU-27 aircraft.


The chinese Produced J-10 attack fighter.

As these ships are produced in numbers and as the Chinese continue with their across the board naval buildup and their carrier development plans towards ultimately lauching their own, the balance of power in the China Sea and western Pacific is going to hang in the balance. Do not forget, the Chinese have purchased and are studying and apparently refitting western style and Russian aircraft carriers. Their intentions in this regard, with the production of all the support and defense ships necessary to form carrier battle groups of their own is clear. Even without those groups, they are poducing a formidable force to challenge our groups in the inner island chain in the western Pacific.

While the Chinese experience level with this equipment is lacking and will be very much inferior to the decades of practical experience the United States Navy has, there is no doubt that the Chinese are embarked on a path to challenge that experience and heretofore dominance of the U.S. Navy in the region at some point. If within range of large numbers of land-based aircraft and missiles, and if coupled with modern, capable weapons systems like the Sunburn or Moskit missiles and perhaps supercavitiating torpedo technology, a credible threat to American naval supremecy in the western Pacific could be posed in the next few years...and this does not even address their continued rapid buildup of ballistic missiles and modernization program across the board of their land based armed forces, which are proceeding at a similar pace as that described here regarding their navy and naval air forces.

Although the hefty12-14% increase in direct military expenditures of the Red Chinese (and this does not include dual use and so-called private sector input to the defense apparatus-just remeber, in the Red Chinese system, there is no real private sector) represents a small proportion of US Military outlays, remember as well that a significant portion of western outlays goes towards relatively high salaries, benefits, and health care costs that the Chinese system is not burdened with. In terms of outlays towards pure military weapons systems directly, the Chinese are rapidly catching up with western numbers. All of this bears very serious consideration and planning.

While we do so, consider this: As stated, the Chinese are currently building and launching eight modern, entire classes of major combatant vessels (not including the two new nuclear attack and strategic missile submarines)...simultaneously. This is a monumental achievement and compares to the United States Navy which is currently building and launching three new classes of major combatants (the Virginia class subs, the San Antonio class LPDs, and the continuing Burk class destroyers) with plans for two to three more U.S. classes in the future Clearly the Chinese and the PLAN are serious about their future naval capabilities in the China Sea and western Pacific and are rapidly building up across the board to implement them. This should be be reminiscent to our senior citizens who experienced it, or anyone who has studied history, of the rapid buildup of adversary military in the 1930s. We all know where that led.

Again, there can only be one power that the Red Chinese intend to, and must, confront if conflict over geo-political policy comes into play...and that is the U.S. Navy. Such tremendous development, building and launching of vessels indicate that they intend to do just that and their intentions, capabilities and funding in this regard cannot be underestimated.

Copyright © 2005, by Jeff Head

---

Jeff Head (jeffhead.com) is an engineering consultant who has many years of experience in the power, defense, and computer industries. He currently wotrks for the federal government helping maintain and protect regional infrastructure. He is a member of the U.S. Naval Institute, and he is also the author of a self-published and best-selling fictional series of military techno-thrillers about future military confrontation with the Red Chinese called the Dragon's Fury Series of novels (dragonsfuryseries.com) that projects a fictional third world war arising out of current events.

You can read about that series by clicking on the pictures of the novel covers below:

THE DRAGON'S FURY SERIES OF NOVELS

[ran15]

Even if you are just pointing out the negative aspects still a lot of good points.


"Who will design the new technology for our military? American engineering jobs are being shipped overseas at an alarming rate. There is little incentive for American college students to study the hard sciences anymore."


Let me give you some numbers in 1999 America graduated 60,000 engineers. In 2004 America graduated 55,000 engineers. In 1999 China graduated 120,000 engineers, but in 2004 they graduated an astounding 350,000. And it will continue to grow.

In Chinese universities they don't offer greek and roman studies, poli-sci, sociology, anthropology, lawyers, women's studies etc.. In short they are very serious about real sciences, and economic competitiveness.


"We *might* have been able to get away with that (for awhile anyway) while the rest of the world functioned under communism, the most unefficient economic system ever invented; but we will *not* be able to get away with it since China has transitioned to the relatively efficient system of facism."

This is so true.. when we went to the left our main competitor went ridiculusly to the left. In the end not surprisingly they couldn't even get food on the shelf for their people, let alone keep financing a navy on par with us.

The Chicom economic system is like it or not producing real results. And considering they are still reforming, some reforms that are only possible in a fascist system.. that isnt' likely to stop.

The religion of peace isn't leftist either.

--Having said that America can continue to compete, but it is going to take some real reforms for us too. Like in fairness some of the Bush reforms like tax cuts, have helped us.

And like the Chicoms can ally with the Russians or Iranians, we can also make new friends like India, and militarize Japan.

[ran15]

"remember as well that a significant portion of western outlays goes towards relatively high salaries, benefits, and health care costs that the Chinese system is not burdened with. In terms of outlays towards pure military weapons systems directly, the Chinese are rapidly catching up with western numbers."


Few people realize that. A LOT of our military spending is retirement and health benefits for veterans. And most of our federal budget is entitlements for the elderly.

The Chinese aren't democratic so they have at best meager benefits for their old.. and those aren't rising even as China grows. They also have an endless peasantry to draw soldiers from.

Therefore the only rational way to compare the two militaries is looking at numbers and quality of equipment, port facilities, those kind of numbers.


I mean if we look at pure budgets, France would be ranked as one of the greatest militaries on earth.

[FDNYRHEROES]

A chinese company is actually operating the Panama Canal for the Panamanians....Scary...

[Toddsterpatriot]

An empire without a manufacturing base.

The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

With logic like your's, I'm surprised we rank that high.

[jriemer]

I am afraid that after Vietnam, it pretty much became defunct and I believe was disbanded in 1977. Its primary purpose was to halt communist agression in SE Asia, After Vietnam, due to action requiring unanimous vote, when we failed to act in Lao it pretty much ended.

Chalk this up as another failure of the Carter Administration.

[jriemer]

Sell Taiwan AEGIS and the latest PATRIOT technology.

The delivery of USS Kidd-class destroyers next year to Taiwan is token help but it's 1970s technology and ship design.

[jriemer]

Jeff,the DD-X class will use a 155mm(6.1 inch) advanced gun system,not to different from today's army howitzers & will infact be able to fire shells further than the Iowa.

That is if the DD-x is build at all

"PASCAGOULA -- A possible change in the DD(X) program could mean Northrop Grumman Ship Systems would go from building three of the next generation warships to building all or none.

Ship Systems President Phil Dur said Tuesday that company officials learned recently that because of a proposed reduction in the number of ships projected under the DD(X) program, Ship Systems and its main competitor, Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, may have to compete for the contract to build the ships. [snip]"
DD(X) program change likely - The Mississippi Press (2/23/2005)

[Mase]

The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

With logic like your's, I'm surprised we rank that high.
_________________________

I could only get through about half of B4's article before I'd had enough. The basic NYT message of Europe good, America bad is trite and I'm surprised to see it appear on FR especially when so much of it criticized the USA for not having socialized medicine. The rest of it is rife with factual errors. Here are some things the author conveniently neglected:

* American workers are the most productive in the world.
* Our consumption is the economic engine keeping the
world economy from tanking.
* The US is the world leader in virtually every area of
technology.
* American pharma's save 5 lives for every one life saved
by drugs from other countries.
* 80% of the bottom 20% of income earners moves into the
middle class every ten years. Source: 1990 and 2000
census and "The Right Facts" book. No other country
offers that kind of opportunity.
* When world leaders and other aristocrats get sick they
choose to be treated in the US.(If they're smart)
* Old Europe is mired in high unemployment, no growth,
oppressive regulation, corruption and they are incapable
of defending themselves as military spending gives way
to the nanny state.
And so on...

Maybe that's why so many people are willing to risk so much to get here. Somehow, all this is lost on the author.

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: I believe the huge market, as long as the communists are still in power, is an illusion specifically intended to draw us there.

1. "Draw your enemy in"

... and also

2. "When you are strong [militarily and geopolitically] appear to be [strong economically but] weak [militarily and geopolitically]"

= Sun Tzu

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: The average Chinese has no interest in the political ideology of the past and looks upon Hong Kong with great envy.

However, I have met a number of average Chinese who, while not involved in politics, do believe in future Chinese hegemony, believe that the current norms of territorial control of litorals is wrong and that the Chinese "1000 miles out" is correct, that the PRC has a right to nearby "vassal" states (e.g. SE Asia), that Taiwan should be forced either by non military pressure, or military force, to be governed by Beijing, and, that war with the USA is inevitable. Also, significantly, whereas, ethnic Chinese in SE Asia used to be either neutral or pro Western in orientation, I note among the newer generations, a decidedly pro PRC point of view. All of this must, IMHO, be factored into ones calculations regarding overall hazard and risk analysis.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I could only get through about half of B4's article before I'd had enough. The basic NYT message of Europe good, America bad is trite and I'm surprised to see it appear on FR especially when so much of it criticized the USA for not having socialized medicine. The rest of it is rife with factual errors.

I love this one:The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

If you believe that a 3rd world dictatorship that can't afford aspirin has a lower infant mortality rate than the country that regularly saves the lives of babies born months prematurely then you need to lay off the crack.

Or this one:"The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens"

Do I really need to explain the difference between providing health care and refusing health care?

[GOP_Party_Animal]

The Navy can simply borrow technology for GPS-guided munitions that could be fired out of a 16" Iowa gun. Imagine being able to fire such accurate weapons without the expense or risk of using carrier-based aircraft. Ship-to-ship combat could make use of guns again rather than missiles or aircraft.

[B4Ranch]

With logic like your's, I'm surprised you can read. I did not author the article.


>>The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).

The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

"The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).

Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!

"The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).

"Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).

Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).

Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.

The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).

U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).

As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).

"Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).

Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).

"Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).

"The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).

No. 1? In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.

The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.


If you wish to remain blind to the degradation of America, such is your option. Keep deluding yourself and you won't notice when we hit the bottom in every category.

[Paul Ross]

Here is another defining moment--Confusion and paralysis in deployments of the new ships

Posted 03/07/05 09:35

---

USN Ship-Buying Practices Under Scrutiny
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Congress will get its chance this week to weigh in on the way the U.S. Navy buys its ships — and how few it’s been buying. But members of the House Projection Forces subcommittee couldn’t refrain from boring in on the subject during a March 2 hearing supposedly devoted to Navy research and development efforts.

“That’s a bad decision,” ranking member Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., said of Navy acquisition chief John Young’s effort to restructure the $18.25 billion DD(X) destroyer construction program. “I see nothing good coming of that.”

Referring to the skimpy four ships in the Navy’s 2006 budget request, Taylor asked Young, three admirals and two Marine Corps generals, “Why aren’t you standing on the table asking for the Navy to get a fair shake?” Then, in reference to the Bush administration, he added, “I think someone above you thinks ships aren’t important.”

Taylor, whose Mississippi district includes Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard at Pascagoula, asked why nearly all of the Navy’s major ship and aircraft programs were cut or delayed in the 2006 budget submission. “Are we creating vulnerability 10 to 15 years from now, when countries like China are hitting their stride?”

Young cited overall budget constraints as the reason for the program delays. Vice Adm. Joseph Sestak, deputy chief of naval operations (DCNO) for warfare requirements and programs, and Vice Adm. Lewis Crenshaw, DCNO for resources and requirements, said the delays were acceptable.

But Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Magnus, deputy commandant for programs and resources, was more sanguine.

“I’m certainly concerned about the continuing ability of the U.S. Navy to sustain forces forward,” he said, referring to the decline from 12 to nine in the number of new LPD-17 amphibious transports to be built, and the possible corresponding reduction in the number of expeditionary strike groups. “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

Marine Lt. Gen. James Mattis said the Marine Corps still needs the Navy to be able to transport three Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs) instead of the 2.5 it now can carry. The Navy’s current amphibious construction plan can’t meet that demand, said Mattis, who heads the Marines’ Combat Development Command.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., has scheduled a subcommittee hearing devoted to Navy shipbuilding. Young, Sestak, Crenshaw and Magnus are scheduled to return March 10 as Congress responds to the February call by Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, for hearings on the issue.

No one is happy with the direction Navy shipbuilding has taken. As ships grow more expensive — new submarines cost $2.5 billion each, LPD-17s $1.3 billion and estimates for the DD(X) range from near $3 billion and up — the service has struggled to prioritize where to spend the average $10.5 billion per year it can expect for new ships.

The decline in ship numbers and frequent program changes has meant the major suppliers — General Dynamics’ yards at Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, Electric Boat, Groton, Conn., and National Steel and Shipbuilding, San Diego; and Northrop Grumman’s shipyards at Newport News, Va., Pascagoula, Miss., and New Orleans, — complain about the lack of predictability in their work, making it difficult to sustain a skilled labor force and buy materials.

Firing Back

While Congress is teeing off at Navy officials on the topic, many within the service, including Clark and Young, view Capitol Hill as part of the problem. The Navy, for example, had planned to order the first DD(X) this month using research and development funds. But Congress last year mandated the ship be built with procurement funding. That money’s just not available right now, Navy officials said. The ship now is planned for 2007.

Similarly, Congress — led by Bartlett — was concerned that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program was moving too fast, and scratched Navy plans to build prototype ships in consecutive years. Now, Lockheed Martin has been forced to delay building its second LCS, planned for 2006, to 2007.

Bartlett asked Young how the service plans “to use the time” gained by the delays.

On the high-technology DD(X), Young said the service would continue with detail design of the ship and that a new radar system now would be ready before the ship’s hull was complete.

But on the LCS, Young didn’t give in to Bartlett’s suggestion that the delay would give the service “more time for experimentation.”

“There’s a lot of operating analysis that tells us we’re building the right hull to start with,” Young said, denying significant changes would be needed in the ships. •

E-mail: ccavas@defensenews.com.

[Schwaeky]

Just an observation, and it may be just nothing, but have you went into a Chinese buffet in the last few years? I have--and noticed something, that for the most part they are all the same.. Has me wondering if they are controlled by the ChiComs and are an additional income stream for their development.. The chinese buffet craze came about within a few years of economic liberalization, before that they were virtually all sit down menu-based...

[Paul_Denton]

I thinnk the DDX is also going to have a railgun as well, or so I read in Popular Science.

[Paul_Denton]

Awesome. I will check that out if I ever get back there.

[Paul_Denton]

Yeah I emailed Fox News once about that as well, and got no reply. All I see is Micheal Jackshit and Martha Stawlart (both spelling intentionall) who get even more coverage than Lebanon's newfound freedom. Too few people seem to realize this impending crisis.

[GOP_1900AD]

On the whole, doubtful. However, as with all businesses of this type, I would be suspicious of a small fraction of the illegal aliens working there. Some of them may be using an under-the-table "illegal" charade as a cover for something else. But in reality, the most espionage (as demonstrated many times by the FBI and US Atty's Office) is happening via other "legends." The most common legends used are students (here from the PRC on student visas) and professionals (here on H1Bs if worker bees and L1As if management).

[Paul_Denton]

The delivery of USS Kidd-class destroyers next year to Taiwan is token help but it's 1970s technology and ship design.

I agree. And they would need extensive modernization to match China's Type 052 "Aegis" ships. Better to just give them ready-made Arleigh Burkes complete with the SM-2/3 and Spy-1F. Taiwan is on the priority list to get the Patriot PAC-3 (the latest and greatest in the series, performed flawlessly in Gulf War 2 save for that Chinese land-attack cruise missile Saddam shot off at Kuwait City) but Taiwan's leadership is having problems procuring it (and other hardwar as part of Bush's 2001 deal) thanks to the KMT.