A Force for a New Era: The American Military in the 21st Century

The Freedom Institute ^ | July 12, 2003 | Adam Yoshida

[adamyoshida]

No- but the Chinese Navy is, at present and will be for the foreseeable future, grossly inferior to the US Navy.

Now, will more Carriers be needed? Certianly. Especially as tools for power projection. Also the DD(X) and CG(X) type ships will be required as well as additional Virginia class Submarines. But the building programs for most of those ships can be scaled to keep pace with the Chinese buildup- the US lead is so huge, it just has to work to maitiain it at sea.

I suspect that, when it comes down to it, a relative handful of US Submarines, Surface Ships, and Aircraft could deny the control of the South China Sea for a realtively extended period. A pair of complete Carrier Battle Groups- backed up by land-based air and stiffened with additional SSN's, could probably send the whole PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy- the offical name on the ChiCom Navy) to the bottom in a matter of hours.

Recall, China has only a handful of even semi-modern surface combatants- a pair of Sovremennyy-class Destroyers and a few recently-built ships which compare unfavorably with the old Adams-class Destroyers or a Perry-class FFG.

It's most advanced submarines (those presently under construction- named Project 093) are, at best, going to be comperable to the old Soviet Victor III's. The Han class SSN's that the Chinese have now are first generation boats in every sense the world- no better than a Russian November or a British Dreadnought or a US Natutilis. It's formidible against the other smaller fleets in the region- but nothing compared to US attack boats.

Now, in the future, the Chinese fleet will grow- especially if they're smart and go for the construction of a strong fleet capable of action in Littoral waters in conjunction with an extremely large land-based air force. Such a combination would be difficult for a Blue Water fleet, such as the US Navy, to beat without assembling a large force and taking notable losses. However, such a Chinese fleet would not be a serious threat outside the immidiate region- and could, in absense of a clash of fleets, be attrited with minimal US losses. Certianly, the effacy of such a fleet would be reduced by the fact that us Air-Sea power could close every port in China with relative ease. A combination of mines, Submarines, and Cruise Missiles could devastate ships as they leave and enter while further out US surface vessels and air power would engage ships that dare to venture outside heavy land-based air cover.

[rmlew]

Of course we would be willing to spend more that 5% of GDP today. (Although I don't think the budget is actually more than 500 Billion.)
The issue is maintaining a budget at that rate to keep a force structure.

[rmlew]

No- but the Chinese Navy is, at present and will be for the foreseeable future, grossly inferior to the US Navy.
The issue is not a blue water fight, but one which would occure within Chinese Air cover.

Now, will more Carriers be needed? Certianly. Especially as tools for power projection. Also the DD(X) and CG(X) type ships will be required as well as additional Virginia class Submarines. But the building programs for most of those ships can be scaled to keep pace with the Chinese buildup- the US lead is so huge, it just has to work to maitiain it at sea
We are planing to replace 31 Spruance class Destroyers (24 active) and 48 OH Perry Frigates with 32 DDX Zumwalts.
Do the math. That is a loss of 40 ships in our inventory. I say replace the Spriances with 32 DDX and have some new frigates. In the meantime, upgrade the OH Perry's so that can handle teh SM-2 missle instead of the obsolete SM1R.
As I noted before, we normally only keep 1/3 of our fleet deployed at a given point (1/3 more deployable and 1/3 layed up). Of this only about 1/4 is in the Pacific. That means that you should compare China's strength to that of 1/12 to 1/6 of our navy.

Recall, China has only a handful of even semi-modern surface combatants- a pair of Sovremennyy-class Destroyers and a few recently-built ships which compare unfavorably with the old Adams-class Destroyers or a Perry-class FFG.

How does the Soveremennyy compare poorly with an Adams?
It's sam's have the same range (assuming that the Gadflies are not replaced with Grizzlies). However, it still has a better anti-missle defense with its AK-630s.
They carry the Moskit missle, which has a loinger range than the Harpoon IC and is a supersonic sea-skimmer designed to defeat the Aegis/Sm-2 systems.
Frankly, on paper the Soveremenny compares well with the Kidds.

It's most advanced submarines (those presently under construction- named Project 093) are, at best, going to be comperable to the old Soviet Victor III's. The Han class SSN's that the Chinese have now are first generation boats in every sense the world- no better than a Russian November or a British Dreadnought or a US Natutilis. It's formidible against the other smaller fleets in the region- but nothing compared to US attack boats.

You forgot about the diesel-electric subs, which are quiet when running on batteries.

You are correct that we could defeat China ono-on-one. However, China would only act when we are over extended, like today.

[adamyoshida]

In the meantime, upgrade the OH Perry's so that can handle teh SM-2 missle instead of the obsolete SM1R. I was given to understand that such a proposal was technologically less than feasible with the existant MK.13 Launchers- the FFG-7's would have to be converted with VLS- of which they could only carry the short cells in a total of something like 32. How does the Soveremennyy compare poorly with an Adams? It's sam's have the same range (assuming that the Gadflies are not replaced with Grizzlies). However, it still has a better anti-missle defense with its AK-630s. They carry the Moskit missle, which has a loinger range than the Harpoon IC and is a supersonic sea-skimmer designed to defeat the Aegis/Sm-2 systems. Frankly, on paper the Soveremenny compares well with the Kidds. I agree with you about the Soveremenny's- but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about the Luhu's and the like, which are substantially less advanced. China, bear in mind, only has two Soveremenny's with two more on order. You forgot about the diesel-electric subs, which are quiet when running on batteries. You are correct that we could defeat China ono-on-one. However, China would only act when we are over extended, like today. Well, the handful of Kilo-class subs might pose some threat. The mass of Romeo-type boats (the vast bulk of the Chinese fleet) are totally useless. It's also, I think, important to note that the US could probably expect the help of the Taiwanese Armed Forces and, possibly, those of Japan as well against China.

[rmlew]

was given to understand that such a proposal was technologically less than feasible with the existant MK.13 Launchers- the FFG-7's would have to be converted with VLS- of which they could only carry the short cells in a total of something like 32.
28 SM-2's that can take out missles and have a range of 35nm are better than 36 SM-1s that cannot hit sea-skimmers and have a range of 20nm.

I agree with you about the Soveremenny's- but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about the Luhu's and the like, which are substantially less advanced. China, bear in mind, only has two Soveremenny's with two more on order.
The Luhu's and Luda's are obsolete. However, the new type 52 destroyers are not.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052c.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052b.asp
Comming less than 5 years after the Luhu, these are a generation ahead and are closing in on us if they are carrying the S-300.