TO TAKE TAIWAN, FIRST KILL A CARRIER

China's communist leadership has long anticipated that to militarily subdue democratic Taiwan it will first need to win a battle against the United States. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is now preparing for one specific, and key, battle. It is developing methods to disable or sink American aircraft carriers and gathering the specific force packages to do so. With such a strike, Beijing hopes to quickly terminate American involvement in a Taiwan War.

SHIFTING PRIORITIES
The early 1990s saw much evidence of carrier-related research and nationalist-political advocacy, particularly from the PLA Navy (PLAN), to build a Chinese aircraft carrier. But, following the political crises of 1995 and 1996, which saw the Clinton administration deploy two battle groups around the carriers Independence and Nimitz near Taiwan in response to threatening PLA exercises in March 1996, sinking a U.S. carrier became much more pressing than building one.

In developing that capability, Beijing hopes to deter U.S. military assistance to Taiwan, and by actually sinking one, to terminate U.S. attempts to save the island. This strategy follows from the bias--a potentially dangerous one for China--that America's aversion to military casualties equates to its unwillingness to risk a real war over the fate of Taiwan. This is apparently a widely held view. It was expressed most boldly by Major General Huang Bin, a professor at the PLA National Defense University, in Hong Kong's Ta Kung Pao daily newspaper on May 13:

"Missiles, aircraft, and submarines all are means that can be used to attack an aircraft carrier. We have the ability to deal with an aircraft carrier that dares to get into our range of fire. Once we decide to use force against Taiwan, we definitely will consider an intervention by the United States. The United States likes vain glory; if one of its aircraft carrier should be attacked and destroyed, people in the United States would begin to complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. president would find the going harder and harder."

SUMMONING COURAGE
General Huang's statement is in fact not especially audacious, considering that since the mid-1990s the weakness of aircraft carriers and the methods to attack them has been a frequent topic in China's military press. It would appear that the PLA is mustering its courage, trying to convince itself that it can with some success attack U.S. carriers. In October and November 2000, for example, after Russian Pacific-based fighters and bombers made surprise runs against the carrier Kitty Hawk, the People's Liberation Army Daily could barely conceal its glee, devoting three articles to the incident.

GATHERING FORCES
The PLA's apparently growing confidence is likely bolstered by the fact that it is also gathering the forces needed to confront U.S. carriers at a useful distance from the Mainland.

--Sensor Package. Finding an aircraft carrier group is aLMOST as important as attacking it. Understanding this, the PLA is investing in multiple layers of reconnaissance and surveillance systems. In space, it is expected to soon deploy the first of new generations of high-resolution electro-optical satellites and radar satellites, which are especially useful in piercing cloud cover. The PLA has been developing over-the-horizon (OTH) radar with ranges up to thousands of kilometers for a long time. And its Air Force will soon take delivery of its Russian A-50E AWACS to find ships at sea. But because radar can be jammed, it is likely that the PLA will also use hundreds of small fishing boats, as well as agents in Japan, to track U.S. naval forces.

--Air Strike Package. The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) is now beginning to cooperate with the Navy in conducting naval strikes. Later in this decade, elderly PLA Naval Air Force H-6 (Tu-16) bombers will be supplanted by eighty to 100 PLAAF Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKK and about twenty indigenous Xian JH-7A fighter bombers. Both will carry long-range antiradar or antiship missiles, some of which will have supersonic speeds that can defeat U.S. close-in weapon systems (CIWS) for defense against such missiles. Both will also have new long-range self-guided air-to-air missiles (AAM) like the Russian R-77 or the indigenous Project 129 AAM, that will approach the usefulness of U.S. missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM. This means that PLAAF fighters will soon have half a chance fighting their way to their targets.

--Sub-Strike Package. According to Russian press reports, China signed a contract on May 2 to purchase eight Project 636 KILO class conventional submarines, to be delivered in five years. The PLAN already has four KILOs, including two Project 636s, with advanced quieting technology that makes them very difficult to detect. The PLAN's new KILOs, however, will be armed with the Russian Novator CLUB antiship missile system. The CLUB-N is a 300km range cruise missile that looks like the American TOMOHAWK and can be configured for land-attack missions. The CLUB-S has a subsonic first stage with a 220km range, but also uses a rocket-powered second stage to defeat CIWS. In addition, the PLAN may now be building its fifth Project 039 or SONG class conventional submarine. Early difficulties with this class appear to have been solved: Series production is centering on an upgraded Project 039A version. For most of this decade, the PLAN will also have some twenty older MING class conventional submarines and approximately five older Project 091 HAN class nuclear-powered attack submarines. While these may be less effective than the KILOs or the SONGs, they will nevertheless greatly complicate the task of the defenders.

--Surface Strike Package. The PLAN is adding two new modernized Sovremenniy class destroyers to two already acquired. Armed with their hard-to-intercept supersonic 300km range YAKHONT and the 120km range MOSKIT missiles, these ships would likely wait behind the submarines and attacking aircraft. But the PLA may also be considering purchasing a SLAVA class cruiser from Ukraine. These are armed with sixteen 550km range GRANIT supersonic antiship missiles.

Surveillance/Targeting
--2-4 A-50E Awacs
--2-4 Optical and Radar Satellites
--Over The Horizon Radar

Air Strike
--80-100 Su-30MKK w 4x antiship missiles
--20 JH-7A w 2x antiship missiles
--?? J-10 w 2x antiship missiles

Missile Strike
--DF-21 intermediate range ballistic missile
--DF-15 short range ballistic missile
--Yakhont antiship missile
--Sunburn antiship missile
--Club Sub-launched antiship missiles
--Air-launched antiship missiles

--Other Strike Options. Another option mentioned in PLA literature is to attack carriers with long-range ballistic missiles. The former Soviet Union had considered this in the 1960s. With proper targeting, satellite navigation guidance and perhaps an enhanced radiation warhead, ballistic missile strikes could disable a carrier. The PLA can also be expected to make great use of deep-sea mines, such as its rocket-propelled EM-52, which could break the keel of a large ship. In addition, the PLA may use Special Forces to attempt to disable carriers in port and attack U.S. aircraft on foreign bases. This is especially critical, given that carriers now rely increasingly on land-based Navy and Air Force support aircraft.

CAN THEY DO IT?
It took the former Soviet Union more than twenty years to build a credible threat to U.S. carriers. China is trying to do so within this decade. To its credit, the PLA is rapidly gathering the right kinds of forces. Skeptics, however, will always question whether the PLA can use them in a sufficiently coordinated fashion to create maximum stress on carrier defenses. Once it has such forces in hand, the PLA will then have to marry layers of long-range sensors to force packages of air, submarine and surface ships armed with new long-range missiles. It may be that the Ukranian carrier Varyag, now being refurbished in a guarded Dalian shipyard, will best serve as a target ship to refine PLA carrier-attack doctrine and tactics. If properly used, the forces China is gathering could--at a minimum--stop one U.S. carrier battle group.

IMPLICATIONS FOR WASHINGTON
In a surprise attack scenario, given its strategic dependence on naval forces in East Asia, the United States might be able to muster only one carrier to support Taiwan. Strategic and economic pressures have reduced its fleet to thirteen carriers with smaller and less capable air wings. Former distinct fighter and attack aircraft are now melded in one platform, the F/A-18E/F. While this might be a convenient economical compromise for the Navy, it is not clearly superior to the Su-30MKK. Since 1999, the long-range antisubmarine function has been taken from the superb S-3 VIKING aircraft, and the number of E-2C HAWKEYE radar warning aircraft have been cut from five to four per air wing. It is time to reverse this trend. It is time to consider the systems needed to defeat China's gathering anticarrier forces if deterrence is to be sustained on the Taiwan Strait.

Don't even think about going there.

Why do you think China is taking the Spratleys?
What do you suppose the troop buildup on the
border is for? Do you think China can be
repelled from attacking Taiwan by jingoism
half a world away?

What American forces are stationed near
enough to Taiwan to do anything about
an attack from the mainland? The PRC's
ability to airlift troops quickly enough
into Taiwan is the determinant of whether
or not they will present the US with
a fait accompli.

China may or may not take Taiwan. Personally I hate communists and despise the arrogant, power-mad, 'leadership' of Peking.

What I meant by telling them "Don't go there", is that they could not kill several thousand Americans without getting a Nuclear kiss in return.

At least as long as we have a Texan in office.

they could not kill several thousand Americans without getting a Nuclear
kiss in return.

          I don't think we would be the first
          to go nuclear. Shoot, look how
         we backed and filled when they
         brought down the spy plane.

        What really rankles is that we don't
         want to irritate the PRC by selling
        Taiwan the weapons they want and
        need to defend themselves, yet we
        can't maintain the massive US presence
       in that area needed as deterrence.

We, the American people are funding this Chinese military build-up

I agree 100%.

We are blatantly doing this through products sold en masse to the American public. But American taxpayer monies also helped fund a lot of things in Russia (remember the big Ford truck plant?)

... if the Chicoms did take out
one of our carriers, we would respond with nukes.

And you know that because....

No need to invade a barrn nuclear wasteland China would become.

Once again you assume a nuclear first strike by the US.
That is the point yet to be resolved.

I disagree with your assessment of the "Second Battle of Taiwan."

You presume that the People's Republic of China could survive losing a major war in one (political) peace.

I think that losing a war would be likely to cause a military coup d'etat (historically, LOSING armies have been the ones to overthrow their own governments), and that said coup would lead to a revival of warlordism across all of China.

China needs about 20 years to build a Navy powerful enough to take on the US Navy in Chinese waters with a reasonable prospect of success. They will need another ten years after that to build enough amphibious assault sealift to execute a successful invasion of Taiwan. I don't think they HAVE 30 years left.

And even if the Chinese did take Taiwan, the US, as the dominant maritime power, would continue to rule the world ocean. China would discover that (a) we really don't need chew toys for our dogs THAT badly, (b) when your adversary owns every ocean OUTSIDE of the South China Sea and insists on closing all Chinese maritime trade, you have a big problem, and (c) life really sucks when you can't import food from the US of A.

Note that Britain's continenetal allies were all subdued by Napoleon in the period 1805-1809, but that Britain won the war. Same principle here--being the ultimate seapower means never having to say "armistice."

Let's review the physics, shall we? Flying at 2,000 MPH only a few feet above the ocean surface means that (a) the weapon doesn't have a lot of control authority for evasive maneuvers, (b) not a lot of TIME for said maneuvers, and (c) flying into a wave at those speeds is roughly akin to driving into a concrete wall at 200MPH, Mr. Earnhardt.

BTW, I did some checking around: the US Navy uses Vandal drones (essentially rebuilt Talos missiles) as test targets to simulate the SS-N-22. If anything, the Vandal is a tougher target (better autopilot, a bit faster, better endgame evasive maneuvers) than the Sunburn--and the Aegis system still bags it.

BTW, I did some checking around: the US Navy uses Vandal drones (essentially rebuilt Talos missiles) as test targets to
simulate the SS-N-22. If anything, the Vandal is a tougher target (better autopilot, a bit faster, better endgame evasive
maneuvers) than the Sunburn--and the Aegis system still bags it.

That's the first good news I've heard regarding the Sunburn. Thanks.

The United States likes vain glory; if one of its aircraft carrier should be attacked and destroyed, people in the United States would begin to complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. president would find the going harder and harder."

If one of our carriers gets sunk, whoever did it will eat tomahawks, B61s, and all kinds of other really nasty ordnance.

Well those "nasty tempered" boys can't walk on water.

They would be sitting targets on boats.

For whom to shoot at them? I think the Duke is on to something. Although there has been a slight stiffening in American spine since September 12, 2001, we're nothing like the society we had on December 8, 1941.

Look at the breathless coverage every time an American soldier in Afghanistan gets a hangnail. While that only represents the media's view, can you imagine the weeks of broadcast tearful interviews and hagiographies of the 7,000 sailors killed after the PLAN sinks an American carrier? We'd never heard the end of it. If the soccer-moms think for even a second that their Jasons and Jessicas might be put in harm's way after that...

I am also concerned about the ROK and Japan... I believe that while fiercely independent, they would look to develop a modus vivendi with an aggrandized China. Their militaries are not enough to force the Chinese to leave them alone.

There was a post above which read that the Chinese had an eight-year-long opportunity to take Taiwan. The poster was correct; President Bush would not stand for it or a Chinese attack on an American carrier. But how would President Hillary Clinton react? Probably hold a Chinese buffet-style banquet...

OBTW: What's with all these Chinese buffet restaurants opening up around Detroit? It seems like every other block has these huge restaurants with a Chinese staff and fixed-price All-You-Can-Eat meals...

For whom to shoot at them?

Submarines, the Taiwanese military, et cetera.

Look at the breathless coverage every time an American soldier in Afghanistan gets a hangnail. While that only represents the media's view, can you imagine the weeks of broadcast tearful interviews and hagiographies of the 7,000 sailors killed after the PLAN sinks an American carrier?

Yup. And the national mood would demand revenge. And said revenge would be terrible.

We'd never heard the end of it. If the soccer-moms think for even a second that their Jasons and Jessicas might be put in harm's way after that...

Maybe you personally are a worthless, no-load, non-hacking waste of oxygen. If you are, please do not presume to speak for your fellow Americans.

Maybe you personally are a worthless, no-load, non-hacking waste of oxygen. If you are, please do not presume to speak for your fellow Americans.

If you want to live in the past, go right ahead. Americans in general are not the same as their grandfathers and grandmothers. Just don't think that as you charge out against the Backstabbing Yellow Peril, that there will be an army behind you. There would be a brigade, maybe two.

America has changed the name of the retaliation against Al-Qaeda because the old name offends their allies! America won't take a serious step towards tighening security aboard its commercial airplanes! America approved a student visa for a terrorist killed in the September 11 attacks! All this, and you believe that there wouldn't be mass wimpiness amongst the soccer-moms and Nineties Guys?

Can it be fixed? Sure it can, but, the social liberals will fight that effort tooth and nail...

One final comment: before you throw around personal insults and invective, try cosidering that the moral is to they physical as three is to one. We would have the capability to retaliate and severly punish China for sinking an American carrier. Would the national mood, manipulated as it is by the social liberals in the media, have that done? Would we be as luck to have someone like President Bush in office at that time?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.