Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Floating fortresses ... or Tomb Stones: Has China sets its Sights on America's Aircraft Carriers?
posted Saturday, 27 May 2006
The Time: The early twentieths century
The Place: Somewhere off of the coast of Guam
The Future: Uncertain.
After a series of provocative moves on both sides, active hostilities have broken out between Mainland China and the disputed island of Chinese-Taiwan. Shots have been fired and the Asia Pacific region has been plunged into a state of crisis unseen since the 1940s
Despite numerous warnings from Beijing, 'To reframe from meddling in China's internal affairs', America has issued the call to arms and, even as you read, the most powerful naval battle group the world has ever seen is sailing towards China.
At its head, the Start and Stripes. The symbol of the world's policeman.
At its heart, the aircraft carriers of the US Navy. The most powerful force projection tools ever created.
Awaiting it, victory or death.
OK, this may sound like an advertisement for a second-rate Tom Clancy novel, but it is an eventuality that Washington has been preparing for.
Change of Seas
In 2001, the Department of Defence Quadrennial Defense Review highlighted a series of deficiencies in the Navy deployment and maintenance cycle. and called for it to be restructured so as to meet the needs of an unstable world where conflicts could break out suddenly in any part of the globe.
As a result, the DoD devised the 'Fleet Response Plan'. A plan designed to ensure that the US could muster the largest possible naval task force, in the shortest possible time, as a response to a world crisis.
Unsurprisingly, at the heart of the Fleet Response Plan, are America's aircraft carriers.
Equally unsurprisingly, the world crisis that America has in mind right now is the possibility of a war with China over the disputed island of Chinese-Taiwan.
Unfortunately for Washington, while it has been preparing to responce to a war between Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan, it would appear that China has been taking notes, and that it is preparing a suitable response of its own to counteract America's response.
Or so says the latest report from the US Department of Defense.
Preparations?
According to the latest report from the DoD, China is in the midst of developing a multi-level anti-shipping capability, aimed at ensure that modern US carriers, like the Kitty-Hawk and Nimitz, go the way of the Yorktown and Lexington, should America see fit to intervene in any future conflict between the Mainland China and its unwilling island neighbor.
Sea-Denial
As such, DoD reports indicate that Beijing is currently in the midst of upgrading its armed forces to allow it to deploy a three tier anti-carrier strike system, consisting of surface, sub surface and air combat units, which it will deploy as part of a wider 'sea denial' strategy aimed at keeping America's aircraft carriers at arms length, and destroying them if they venture too close.
Surface
According to US sources, the surface layer of China's anti-carrier force includes a number of modern missile ships, including two Russia built Sovremenny-Class guided missile destroyers – the DDG-136 Vazhnyy (Eminent) and DDG 137 Vdumchivyy (Thoughtful) - 2 domestically built Luyang I (Type 052B) guided missile destroyers, and 2 Luyang II (Type 052C) guided missile destroyers.
A further 2 Sovremenny-Class are currently being prepared for export to China. One of which is scheduled to arrive in 2007.
The anti-shipping weapons deployed on these vessels include the Russian 3M-80E Moskit (export variation of the SS-N-22) and 3M-54E1(SS-N-27B) anti-shipping missiles, and the domestically produced Jing Ji-83 Anti-shipping missile.
The 3M-80E is a sea launched missile capable of carrying a 300KG warhead (50 percent 'penetration' charge, 50 percent high explosive 'wrecking' charge) at Mach 2, and making 15g evasive 'S' maneuvers during the terminal stage of a strike, in order to evade anti-missile defenses.
The 3M-54E1 is a sea launched subsonic sea skimming cruise missile capable of carrying a 400KG payload up to 300KM.
Both are are large enough to destroy or inflict 'serious damage' on a large surface vessel, including a carrier.
The 3M-80E can be equipped with a nuclear warhead of up to 200 Kilotons.
Sub Surface
China currently possesses 50 Diesel submarines and 5 nuclear submarines of varying classes and capabilities, including the Song Yuan and Shang classes. Some of which are known to be of modern design, while others are short range and of little use against a well defended carrier force.
2 of China's Diesel submarines are known to be Rusia Kilo-class, 2 More are known to be 'improved' Kilo-class; having a range 400 Miles while submerged at a depth of 250 meters, and 7,500 Miles at snorkel depth (shallow sub surface).
8 further Kilo-Class are currently being outfitted for the Chinese Navy, but are not yet in service.
Anti-carrier weapons aboard these submarines include the YJ-82 (CSSC-8 Saccade), a high-speed subsonic sea-skimming missile, carrying a 165KG warhead, which can be fired from a torpedo tube while its launch vessel remains submerged.
Although the textbook range of the YJ-82 is 12KM, new versions exist with a range of almost 200KM.
Additionally, Kilo-Class are equipped to launch the sea launch version of the SS-N-27B anti-shipping missile.
Air
In recent years, China's airborne anti-shipping capabilities have been substantially uprated through the acquisition of 24 Russian Su-30MK2 maritime strike fighter which were delivered in 2004, and associated KH-31A (AS-17 Krypton) air launched anti-shipping missiles, which have a speed of Mach 3+ and carry 90KG warhead.
These planes come in addition to China's standing force of SU-20MK, SU-30MKK, SU-30 and SU-27, all of which are capable of anti-shipping strikes.
Bluff and Double Bluff
While the DoD has raised the issue of Chinese preparations to combat a Naval task force, it has yet to be publicly drawn, in any detail, on exactly how much of a danger such preparations actually pose to US forces. Or how the US would respond to:-
A) The actual threat level of Chinese anti-carrier activities
B) The potential threat level of Chinese anti-carrier activities
This has lead some observers to question how serious a threat this posses to US forces, and whether the lack of information about this threat indicates that the threat is high, low, uncertain, or if the threat has been exaggerated in order to fuel further 'anti-China' sentiment in Congress.
In addition to this, questions have also been asked as to whether or not the entire Chinese program might be bluff, and whether or not the Navy would be willing to call it.
Floating Fortresses....
As any Navy watcher will be able to tell you, while they are large and relatively slow moving, US carrier groups are extremely well protected and posses multiple lines of defense against incoming threats
These defenses include aircraft that are equipped to decoy incoming missiles or destroy attacking submarines and planes.
Carries are also surrounded by Aegis and Aegis capable vessels capable of detecting and destroying multiple incoming missiles with their own anti-missile systems.
As a last line of defense, carriers are even equipped with so-called 'Point Defense' guns; high speed canons designed to shoot down incoming missiles at near point blank range, should they penetrate all other lines of defense.
Ship-board Point Defense Gun Firing
However, despite all of this, observers have questioned exactly how wiling the Navy is to trust itself to these defenses, and exactly how prepared it is to put its carriers in harms way. Particularly if China has been preparing to push 'harms way' out a lot further than it used to be (Beyond the island of Guam, if reports are to be believed), and to make it a lot more harmful than ever before.
.... Or Sinking Pride?
Not only are do carriers represent a substantial dollar value, and carry a sizable human crew who are far from expendable, but they are also a symbol of American pride. Were China to cripple or destroy even a single carrier, it would serve as a massive blow to the US.
The loss of face alone from a successful Chinese anti-carrier action would be devastating, and could dramatically shift public opinions 'back home'. Turning a Sino-US conflict over Chinese-Taiwan form popular war, ala operation Desert Storm, into an a Vietnam style public relations debacle.
This effect would be magnified if it were to include heavy casualties, or to show up a flaw in US carrier defense procedures.
The loss of crippling of a US carrier, by China, could also embolden other nations into defying American will, and trigger an international race to acquire whatever technology it was that China used. Putting American lives at risk, and further destabilizing the international arena.
As such, observers have voiced that China might never actually need to deploy an effective anti-carrier operation, only to be seen to posses the potential to do so, in order to push gun-shy US Captains and military planners into stationing their valuable carriers considerable distances away from Mainland China, and from the conflict zone that they were intended to operate in.
This would apply regardless of whether or not China could actually breach carrier defenses. In many cases, fear of it doing so would be sufficient.
Fleet Response Plan – Some Background
Prior to the Fleet response plan, the US employed an 6 month 3 by 3 rotation system.
The 3 by 3 6 month rotation system allowed for 3 carrier groups to be ready for deployment at any given time, with a 4th group being made ready for deployment. This would be insuficient to fight China on it's own territory, and would be too slow to deploy. Leaving Chinese-Taiwan vulnerable for 30-60 days before a substantive fleet could be assembled.
Under the Fleet Response Plan, deployment, maintenance and training schedules have been re-arranged, to be more flexible. Allowing more carrier strike groups to be ready for operational deployment than ever before and to be more strategically dispersed.
It planned that 6 strike groups will be ready for combat deployment within 30 days of notification, and a further 2 within 90 days without the need to increase the number of carriers groups.
If a crisis is seen developing in advance it is estimated that the Navy could muster 7 carrier strike groups in a single deployment.
The Navy currently possesses 12 carrier groups.
The Place: Somewhere off of the coast of Guam
The Future: Uncertain.
After a series of provocative moves on both sides, active hostilities have broken out between Mainland China and the disputed island of Chinese-Taiwan. Shots have been fired and the Asia Pacific region has been plunged into a state of crisis unseen since the 1940s
Despite numerous warnings from Beijing, 'To reframe from meddling in China's internal affairs', America has issued the call to arms and, even as you read, the most powerful naval battle group the world has ever seen is sailing towards China.
At its head, the Start and Stripes. The symbol of the world's policeman.
At its heart, the aircraft carriers of the US Navy. The most powerful force projection tools ever created.
Awaiting it, victory or death.
OK, this may sound like an advertisement for a second-rate Tom Clancy novel, but it is an eventuality that Washington has been preparing for.
Change of Seas
In 2001, the Department of Defence Quadrennial Defense Review highlighted a series of deficiencies in the Navy deployment and maintenance cycle. and called for it to be restructured so as to meet the needs of an unstable world where conflicts could break out suddenly in any part of the globe.
| “Unlike the Cold War period, where the key geographic regions of competition were well defined, the current period has already imposed demands for U.S. military intervention or activity on virtually every continent and against a wide variety of adversaries. The United States will not be able to develop its military forces and plans solely to confront a specific adversary in a specific geographic area. Instead, the United States could be forced to intervene in unexpected crises” Quadrennial Defense Review 2001, DoD, US |
As a result, the DoD devised the 'Fleet Response Plan'. A plan designed to ensure that the US could muster the largest possible naval task force, in the shortest possible time, as a response to a world crisis.
Unsurprisingly, at the heart of the Fleet Response Plan, are America's aircraft carriers.
| "When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?'" William Clinton President (Former), US |
Equally unsurprisingly, the world crisis that America has in mind right now is the possibility of a war with China over the disputed island of Chinese-Taiwan.
Unfortunately for Washington, while it has been preparing to responce to a war between Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan, it would appear that China has been taking notes, and that it is preparing a suitable response of its own to counteract America's response.
Or so says the latest report from the US Department of Defense.
Preparations?
According to the latest report from the DoD, China is in the midst of developing a multi-level anti-shipping capability, aimed at ensure that modern US carriers, like the Kitty-Hawk and Nimitz, go the way of the Yorktown and Lexington, should America see fit to intervene in any future conflict between the Mainland China and its unwilling island neighbor.
| “evidence suggests the Chinese military has invested in research, development, and technology acquisition oriented on anti-carrier operations.” Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (2006), DoD, US |
Sea-Denial
As such, DoD reports indicate that Beijing is currently in the midst of upgrading its armed forces to allow it to deploy a three tier anti-carrier strike system, consisting of surface, sub surface and air combat units, which it will deploy as part of a wider 'sea denial' strategy aimed at keeping America's aircraft carriers at arms length, and destroying them if they venture too close.
Surface
According to US sources, the surface layer of China's anti-carrier force includes a number of modern missile ships, including two Russia built Sovremenny-Class guided missile destroyers – the DDG-136 Vazhnyy (Eminent) and DDG 137 Vdumchivyy (Thoughtful) - 2 domestically built Luyang I (Type 052B) guided missile destroyers, and 2 Luyang II (Type 052C) guided missile destroyers.
| “the PLA is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific.” Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (2006), DoD, US |
A further 2 Sovremenny-Class are currently being prepared for export to China. One of which is scheduled to arrive in 2007.
The anti-shipping weapons deployed on these vessels include the Russian 3M-80E Moskit (export variation of the SS-N-22) and 3M-54E1(SS-N-27B) anti-shipping missiles, and the domestically produced Jing Ji-83 Anti-shipping missile.
| “China is exploring the use of ballistic and cruise missiles for anti-access missions, including counter-carrier and land attacks” Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (2006), DoD, US |
The 3M-80E is a sea launched missile capable of carrying a 300KG warhead (50 percent 'penetration' charge, 50 percent high explosive 'wrecking' charge) at Mach 2, and making 15g evasive 'S' maneuvers during the terminal stage of a strike, in order to evade anti-missile defenses.
The 3M-54E1 is a sea launched subsonic sea skimming cruise missile capable of carrying a 400KG payload up to 300KM.
Both are are large enough to destroy or inflict 'serious damage' on a large surface vessel, including a carrier.
| “Such a capability represents a very formidable threat to American and allied surface units” John R. Benedict, “The Unraveling and Revitalization of U.S. Navy Antisubmarine Warfare” |
The 3M-80E can be equipped with a nuclear warhead of up to 200 Kilotons.
Sub Surface
China currently possesses 50 Diesel submarines and 5 nuclear submarines of varying classes and capabilities, including the Song Yuan and Shang classes. Some of which are known to be of modern design, while others are short range and of little use against a well defended carrier force.
2 of China's Diesel submarines are known to be Rusia Kilo-class, 2 More are known to be 'improved' Kilo-class; having a range 400 Miles while submerged at a depth of 250 meters, and 7,500 Miles at snorkel depth (shallow sub surface).
8 further Kilo-Class are currently being outfitted for the Chinese Navy, but are not yet in service.
Anti-carrier weapons aboard these submarines include the YJ-82 (CSSC-8 Saccade), a high-speed subsonic sea-skimming missile, carrying a 165KG warhead, which can be fired from a torpedo tube while its launch vessel remains submerged.
Although the textbook range of the YJ-82 is 12KM, new versions exist with a range of almost 200KM.
Additionally, Kilo-Class are equipped to launch the sea launch version of the SS-N-27B anti-shipping missile.
Air
In recent years, China's airborne anti-shipping capabilities have been substantially uprated through the acquisition of 24 Russian Su-30MK2 maritime strike fighter which were delivered in 2004, and associated KH-31A (AS-17 Krypton) air launched anti-shipping missiles, which have a speed of Mach 3+ and carry 90KG warhead.
These planes come in addition to China's standing force of SU-20MK, SU-30MKK, SU-30 and SU-27, all of which are capable of anti-shipping strikes.
Bluff and Double Bluff
While the DoD has raised the issue of Chinese preparations to combat a Naval task force, it has yet to be publicly drawn, in any detail, on exactly how much of a danger such preparations actually pose to US forces. Or how the US would respond to:-
A) The actual threat level of Chinese anti-carrier activities
B) The potential threat level of Chinese anti-carrier activities
This has lead some observers to question how serious a threat this posses to US forces, and whether the lack of information about this threat indicates that the threat is high, low, uncertain, or if the threat has been exaggerated in order to fuel further 'anti-China' sentiment in Congress.
In addition to this, questions have also been asked as to whether or not the entire Chinese program might be bluff, and whether or not the Navy would be willing to call it.
Floating Fortresses....
As any Navy watcher will be able to tell you, while they are large and relatively slow moving, US carrier groups are extremely well protected and posses multiple lines of defense against incoming threats
These defenses include aircraft that are equipped to decoy incoming missiles or destroy attacking submarines and planes.
Carries are also surrounded by Aegis and Aegis capable vessels capable of detecting and destroying multiple incoming missiles with their own anti-missile systems.
As a last line of defense, carriers are even equipped with so-called 'Point Defense' guns; high speed canons designed to shoot down incoming missiles at near point blank range, should they penetrate all other lines of defense.
Ship-board Point Defense Gun Firing
However, despite all of this, observers have questioned exactly how wiling the Navy is to trust itself to these defenses, and exactly how prepared it is to put its carriers in harms way. Particularly if China has been preparing to push 'harms way' out a lot further than it used to be (Beyond the island of Guam, if reports are to be believed), and to make it a lot more harmful than ever before.
.... Or Sinking Pride?
Not only are do carriers represent a substantial dollar value, and carry a sizable human crew who are far from expendable, but they are also a symbol of American pride. Were China to cripple or destroy even a single carrier, it would serve as a massive blow to the US.
The loss of face alone from a successful Chinese anti-carrier action would be devastating, and could dramatically shift public opinions 'back home'. Turning a Sino-US conflict over Chinese-Taiwan form popular war, ala operation Desert Storm, into an a Vietnam style public relations debacle.
This effect would be magnified if it were to include heavy casualties, or to show up a flaw in US carrier defense procedures.
The loss of crippling of a US carrier, by China, could also embolden other nations into defying American will, and trigger an international race to acquire whatever technology it was that China used. Putting American lives at risk, and further destabilizing the international arena.
As such, observers have voiced that China might never actually need to deploy an effective anti-carrier operation, only to be seen to posses the potential to do so, in order to push gun-shy US Captains and military planners into stationing their valuable carriers considerable distances away from Mainland China, and from the conflict zone that they were intended to operate in.
This would apply regardless of whether or not China could actually breach carrier defenses. In many cases, fear of it doing so would be sufficient.
Fleet Response Plan – Some Background
Prior to the Fleet response plan, the US employed an 6 month 3 by 3 rotation system.
- 1/3 of Navy forces deployed and read for action
- 1/3 of Navy forces undertaking training in preparation for deployment
- 1/3 of Navy force undergoing maintenance and refit
- To separate the Navy into distinct blocks, so as to prevent it from being vulnerable to a single co-ordinated strike.
- To provide sufficient down time for maintenance and upgrades to front-line vessels
- To allow Navy personnel clearly defined periods away from active duty that could be spent with their families.
The 3 by 3 6 month rotation system allowed for 3 carrier groups to be ready for deployment at any given time, with a 4th group being made ready for deployment. This would be insuficient to fight China on it's own territory, and would be too slow to deploy. Leaving Chinese-Taiwan vulnerable for 30-60 days before a substantive fleet could be assembled.
Under the Fleet Response Plan, deployment, maintenance and training schedules have been re-arranged, to be more flexible. Allowing more carrier strike groups to be ready for operational deployment than ever before and to be more strategically dispersed.
| “The Fleet Response Plan will maximize the Navy’s ability to respond” Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, US |
It planned that 6 strike groups will be ready for combat deployment within 30 days of notification, and a further 2 within 90 days without the need to increase the number of carriers groups.
If a crisis is seen developing in advance it is estimated that the Navy could muster 7 carrier strike groups in a single deployment.
| “Speed of response is almost more important than anything else we deal with. Together with the U.S. Marine Corps, we are going to be able to provide twice the combat power in one-half the time.” Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, US |
The Navy currently possesses 12 carrier groups.
View Comments/Add a Comment (2)
1. Sarah left...
Wednesday, 31 May 2006 3:47 am :: http://www.journalscape.com/rhubarb/
I would be interested to learn the source of this information. If
accurate, it must be more than just newspaper articles, so detailed and
itemized.
2. ACB left...
Wednesday, 31 May 2006 5:20 am :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
Which particular bits?