Posted on 07/09/2002 6:25:15 AM PDT by Tai_Chung
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.
POSSIBLE PLA ANTICARRIER FORCES BY 2007-10,
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
Sub Strike
--4-12 Kilo SS
--4-6 Song SS
--20 Ming SS
--5 Han SSN
Surface Strike
--4 Sovremenniy DDG
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.
Would a Carrier Battle Group be deployed in the first place? And -
Didn't our "big sticks" get taken down a notch or two - LORAL guidance technology, W-88 warhead, ..., etc?
Our former president would have tucked his tail at this point.
If China is really serious about taking out the carrier they won't use the weapons mentioned they will simply nuke it.
That's sort of like saying:
TO MAKE T-REX STEAK, FIRST KILL A T-REX ...
While possible, it isn't something that I'd like to try.
The same can be said of China. If they were planning military action, the time to do would have been when Clinton was President. They (unlike Hillary) most likely kept the records of their payments to the Clintons and could have blackmailed him, assuming of course if he had wanted to oppose them. I am not sure he would have.
We have a new President now, one that would oppose any attempt to take Taiwan by force.
The use of weapons of mass destructions would just mean the end of life as they know it.
Sinking a carrier would probably kill about 2823 sailors... the same number as the WTC collapse. I would have thought our response to THAT would have been "horrific", but here we are with a relatively bloodless coup in Afghanistan (a government that likely had little to do with the actual attack). I'm not sure if our nation lacks the self-defense mechanism to retaliate, or if that we were stayed by the lack of a national target in the wake of 9-11. I guess China would find the answer to that one if they were inclined towards sinking a carrier.
Personally, I think they understand SunTzu and Pearl Harbor well enough to try to find the best alternative to sinking our ships: finding a way to make sure that we won't want to use them at all.
Instead of driving us from the region, it would make the American defense of Taiwan a top priority. Having lost one carrier, the USA would devote far more to defending Taiwan.
Big mistake by China if they do this, this means they are miscalculating American will, the same way the Japanese did in 1941.
Because the PRC can't currently "take Taiwan" even if the United States doesn't lift a finger or send any carriers at all.
Not enough sealift, dubious ability to achieve air superiority over Taiwan (and again, EVEN IF THERE IS NO U.S. INVOLVEMENT AT ALL).
Taiwan has more troops and is better armed than the Germans in Normandy in WWII.
Do you mean like Bush did when the Chincom brought down our survelience plane? The chin were laughing their heads off at us during that time, especially AFTER we paid them over 1 million US Dollars to get the plane back. Its called air piracy and Senor Bush bitched up to them muy pronton.
A lot, lot, LOT less than that. Any modern US carrier is going to take a heck of a long time to sink. On each of the CVs the US lost in WWII, most, or in some cases, almost ALL, of the crew was rescued.
More like 200-800 sailors killed, methinks.
And I suspect pretty much the entire projectable power of the PRC will be consumed in sinking one carrier (or trying to). We've got more where those came from; the PRC won't.
You are right on the mark regarding how a Chinese attack would be timed and executed, but I have to say that I believe that with our current level readiness, they could very well take Taiwan in such a turn of events. They know that they will only get one chance to cripple our ability to project power in the region. If their forces are concentrated and deployed appropriately, taking out one carrier and much of it's battle group is very likely. What wasn't mentioned in the article was the new torpedo developed by the Russians, which will likely end up in the Chinese arsonal. I can't remember the exact method this torpedo uses, but somehow, it can create a pocket (or many pockets) of air around it's outer surface, allowing it to travel much faster than our ships could effectively respond to a torpedo attack. They're first move would likely be to disable or destroy some of our key satellites which monitor the region. Everything would escallate very quickly from there, because if our satellites over that region go out, our forces there would immediately go on their highest level of alert. As you stated, North Korea would likely invade the South just before that, and if we were also heavilly engaged in Iraq at that time, our forces would be taxed at or possibly beyond their limit. We were able to fight on two major fronts in WW2, but only after most of our production capabillity was shifted to war-time economics. What we have in our favor is that our milliary is MUCH more efficient now than it was in the 1940's. Mass boming has been replaced with surgical air strikes and enormous ground forces, ala D-Day, would not be required to deal with China. The question is, how much of our millitary would be needed to effectively deal with simultanious conflicts in Iraq, North Korea, and Taiwan and do we have enough to fight on three fronts at the same time?
Why? Because we lost a ship in a war? Because this violates the "no one is allowed to shoot at Americans" rule?
I agree with your broader point that such an act would galvanize American opinion. Whether this would guarantee the defeat of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, however, is unclear. Presumably the Chinese would be moving very rapidly, in the hope of presenting us with a fait accompli. They would also try to preserve operational surprise, probably by launching an attack from the springboard of their regular exercises in the area.
A U.S. carrier might conceivably become a target if one were loitering in the vicinity when China moved, but otherwise I don't imagine they would risk the provocation. If no U.S. forces were immediately on hand, the Chinese might realistically hope to have completed the job before we could react. It would be interesting to know whether our subs are routinely covering the Taiwan straight in enough strength to seriously interdict an amphibious movement.
Need to consider the weight margins of the newest carriers...makes me nervous.
In general, the fact that China has ICBMs makes it more important to continue on with Anti-ICBM R&D in my opinion, especially if it all starts out with a conventional attack by China, and our response to it.
No, the American people would clamor for the extermination of Communist China. Don't think so? We're pretty much on our way to eradicating militant Islam for knocking down two buildings.
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.