In previous blog posts (see, “Scrap Two Carriers – Part 3”), I suggested that operating eleven supercarriers has become so expensive that it left our Navy imbalanced, with too few aircraft and surface combatants. This could be corrected by downsizing to nine carriers, which will probably occur anyway because of the flawed USS Ford program. I suggested this loss could be offset by establishing two shore-based overseas Carrier Air Wings. These could be called Naval Air Wings (NAW) and absorb Marine Corps aviation assets to support Navy sea control missions from existing American airbases.
To understand the value of a NAW in the Pacific, one must consider the US Navy’s strategy for war with China. It must be classified, but evidence suggests there is no strategy. Most admirals agree that sending a single carrier strike group toward the Chinese coast is foolish given its massive numbers of land-based fighters and anti-ship missiles. A huge task force of at least four carriers must first be assembled. How long will that take? Based on past crises and the current readiness of the fleet, at least four months will be required. Who will contain the Chinese Navy until then? The US Air Force will be busy defending Japan from air strikes. It has plans to surge airpower to its big airbase on Guam, but that will prove difficult after the airfield is hit with a hundred missiles after air defense systems shoot down just a dozen of them.
Chinese strategy is easy to predict. First, they will destroy the massive American military base complex on nearby Okinawa. Hundreds of short-range missiles will pummel airfields while several hundred Chinese fighters arrive to bomb and strafe the island as some 150 American and Japanese aircraft are destroyed in the first two days. This will leave some 30,000 American civilians and 20,000 military personnel stranded on Okinawa with a dwindling food supply who might face an amphibious invasion. This situation is dire and represents gross incompetence in the US military that I wrote about a few years ago. [1]
China will try to sink any US navy ships in the region before they flee eastward. Ships foolishly homeported at Sasebo, Japan will be sunk as that logistics base is wrecked. I also wrote an article about this a few years back. [2] The big prize is the supercarrier USS Ronald Reagan and its escorts based at Yokosuka, Japan where it remains pierside half the time and thus an easy target for a mass missile attack. The Chinese always know the exact position of this ship in Tokyo Bay and could time an attack to sink it in the port entrance! The US Navy keeps this carrier in ultra-expensive Yokosuka because, well, it’s had one there since the end of World War II. It is there as part of an outdated “forward presence” concept, even though it often deploys to the Persian Gulf. If war threatens, most US Navy ships in Japan will be ordered to sail eastward to safety, leaving thousands of family members in a war zone. The evacuation of Americans from Japan will become a military priority at the beginning of a war, tying up substantial assets.
The US Navy maintains Carrier Air Wing 5 in Japan for the USS Ronald Reagan, with jets based at MCAS Iwakuni, Japan and helicopters at NAF Atsugi. Both airfields are within range of short-range Chinese missiles and land-based fighters so most aircraft will be quickly destroyed unless embarked on the Reagan as it flees eastward. Basing two dozen US Navy ships in Japan is costly and mindless. US military bases in Asia have mostly remained unmoved since the end of the Vietnam war, with the exception of closing bases in the Philippines and downsizing in Guam in the 1990s. Nothing has been done to address growing Chinese power in the region. The only major project is an insane effort to build a new $20 billion dollar airbase for the Marines on Okinawa that will be smashed by Chinese airpower on day one! I’ve written about that too. [3]
This strategic overview may shock those who have not followed the dramatic rise of Chinese military power, nor read my articles linked below. China now has more ships than the US Navy and will have twice as many by 2040. Moreover, China can quickly mass all of its air and naval power in the Western Pacific, where the USA maintains just 10% of its force, while the rest is on the other side of the globe! Even if time allowed for a build-up airpower in the Pacific, the USA has very few airfields in the Pacific with stockpiles of munitions.
This situation is familiar to students of World War II history. Japanese aircraft from Formosa quickly destroyed most US Army Air Corps aircraft forward-deployed to the Philippines nine hours after the Americans were alerted to the attack on Pearl Harbor. US Navy bases there were smashed as ships fled south to the Dutch East Indies. The US Navy had three carriers in Hawaii that were not ready to confront the Japanese Navy. Japan quickly established airbases in the Dutch East Indies where the Japanese hunted down and sunk two dozen Allied warships in a disaster known as the “The Battle of the Java Sea.”
The US Navy doesn’t need to close bases in Japan, which are really Japanese bases anyway. But the three amphibs at Sasebo should move to Hawaii and the minesweepers to Yokosuka or Guam. Sasebo can remain operational but a long-term plan is needed to move its logistical support facilities somewhere in the Central Pacific or Australia. Yokosuka should remain as a logistics and support base in hopes that Japanese and American Air Forces can provide protection. However, the huge USS Ronald Reagan and its families should move to the United States. A squadron with four destroyers can remain to assure Japan of American support. Most Marine Corps aircraft should move off Okinawa where they now sit as easy targets.
The airbase at MCAS Iwakuni should remain as Carrier Air Wing 5 instantly becomes the Pacific NAW, absorbing the two Marine Corps attack squadrons based there. Savings from scrapping two aircraft carriers will free billions of dollars each year to ready two dozen existing airfields in the Central Pacific for wartime use with stocked munitions bunkers, support equipment, and fuel stores so this NAW can disperse to operate outside the range of most Chinese missiles and all land-based fighter aircraft. Most Chinese missiles are cheap short-range missiles whose range roughly matches that of land base fighters. Planning to operate airbases within this range is foolish, although operating Forward Arming and Refueling points may be possible. See the missile range chart linked below. [4]
This NAW would be key to US Navy strategy during the first months of war with China. It would engage Chinese naval power venturing out for long range attacks or amphibious operations. The Navy and Marine Corps may fly additional squadrons to operate from these bases until Navy submarines and American bombers weakened the Chinese and a huge American fleet arrives. Details on NAW basing options will be presented in the next blog post.
________________________
[1] “Downsize Kadena”; Carlton Meyer; G2mil; 2012; http://www.g2mil.com/kadena.htm
[2] “Vacate Sasebo”; Carlton Meyer; G2mil; 2012; http://www.g2mil.com/sasebo.htm
[3] “The Okinawa Solution”; Carlton Meyer; G2mil; 2012; http://www.g2mil.com/okinawa-solution.htm
[4] Chart of Chinese missile capabilities; The Missile Threat; CSIS; https://i2.wp.com/missilethreat.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Chinaregionalmap.jpg?ssl=1
"This NAW would be key to US Navy strategy during the first months of war with China. "
ReplyDeleteDirect war between US and China is extremely unlikely for a simple reason - nuke, nuke, nuke. Loser in conventional war always has option to escalate. If you still don't think so, just look at what happens in Ukraine.
The part I'm missing is how the Naval Air Wing doesn't get blown up on the ground on day one of a no-notice war the same as the amphibs and carriers that G2mil noted in his post.
ReplyDeleteOur strike and fighter aircraft don't out-range cruise missiles, so either the NAW is based within range of Chinese assets in which case they get smashed by a missile attack probably before the president even knows there's a war on, or they're based outside of range of Chinese assets in which case they survive but can't hit anything themselves and probably end of fleeing to regroup with some other part of the Pacific fleet once the shooting starts.
The "guaranteed second strike" in the nuclear realm is similarly much smaller than it appears, by the way - the only part of the submarine deterrent force that survives the first hour of a war is the subset comprising subs that are both on patrol and undetected at the time the war starts. Everything else is vaporized with the cities of Bremerton, Kings Bay and Groton or is sunk by a YU-6 or UGST immediately.
"Everything else is vaporized with the cities of Bremerton, Kings Bay and Groton or is sunk by a YU-6 or UGST immediately."
DeleteMy guess is that it is unlikely that such an attack could come as a complete surprise, and every boat that could get underway would almost certainly have been scrambled from Bremerton, Kings Bay, and Groton beforehand. And even if the bad guys know where all our boomers were, I doubt that they would be in position to put YU-6s or UGSTs on target for all of them.
I'll address this in the next article, but I did note that it's crazy to base assets within range of most Chinese missiles and land based aircraft. A range chart is linked in the footnotes. Bigger missiles cost more and thus more limited in number, and their warheads are not huge. The solution is lots of small airfields with dispersed facilities and aircraft moving about so targeting them becomes a whack-a-mole game.
DeleteCHINA will probably not attack USA forces on JAP soil for obvious reasons, at least not in a decade or two.
ReplyDeleteThey must take TAIWAN first, and do so while involving as few other countries as possible.
Why drag USA/JAP into the war, from their viewpoint?
They could do it, but then they would get hit with missiles, too.
And JAP/ROK would acquire nukes ASAP.
Nuclear weapons have excluded war directly between US and China. Nuclear war happens only while at least one side becomes "nothing to lose".
DeleteUS tends to push Japan to be a proxy. Japan is really in a dire situation - they cannot break away from US alliance but need to prevent itself becomes a proxy. Die for some people's "American value" is really not worthy.
@Anonymous
DeleteAll this talk of "Defending Asia from China" is BS, Australia, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, etc. have joined the CCP in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) free trade agreement, which excludes the USA.
These folks have voluntarily tightened economic integration with the PRC, many have reduce military spending, and shed manpower (e.g. Australia) but still expect the USA to defend them militarily against Chinese aggression!
It is beyond time for a revision of U.S. strategy to reflect the reality that we have very few true allies; most nations are at best playing both sides in diplomacy, military, and economic affairs: we should be as ruthless. It is time for our elected officials to adopt the 'realpolitik' of Eisenhower's and FDR's foreign policy. The nation must be very clear headed about jumping into conflicts to defend the stupidity of foreign 'allies'.
GAB
Why not defeat the USA first, then Taiwan will give up without a fight? Japan has lots of key American bases. If is something sparks a war with China, it would be difficult to fight without attacking these bases on Japan. If something sparks shooting between the USA and China, one should assume Taiwan will want to join the fighting. But this article is not about political speculation, but how the US Navy can best fight China in time of war.
DeleteDefeat US? US will nuke China into ashes.
DeleteHow dare either US or China attack the other in large scale? Do either want to handle "the Day After" world to Russia?
Nuke has made many upon many hawks uncomfortable. Just look Ukraine, why is Biden so hesitate? if not he believes that Putin will push his red button if Russia's existence become questionable?
Why does everyone assume that nuclear powers cant go to war without resorting to nuclear war?? I dont really think anyone is that foolish, because nobody wins- the devastation is unthinkable for both sides!! While its not impossible, I cant imagine even the most rabid leader turning to "push the button" in the face of a conventional war defeat. Its just too obvious that its a no-win scenario!!
DeleteAs far as China being "nuked to ashes", maybe so but... The US arsenal is in the thousands, and China is estimated to have roughly 350, so in a full exchange, China could expend 100 on military targets, then target the 250 largest US cities. That means that every city in the country with a population of 100k or more, accounting for 50-60% of the total population, gets hit. So the "mere" 350 would devastate the US. Of course failure and (hopefully) a high interception rate could reduce those numbers but... ))Its nothing to shrug off or ignore, regardless of the massive difference in weapons numbers!!
The issues of Okinawa's defensibility go back 60 years, which is why they used to have the Nike missile bases there. But Japan wanted them out, so now there is a single Patriot unit there, ready to stop over 5 of the 300 missiles China will use to swarm and destroy the flightline inventory at Kadena, Futenma, and JSDF Naha.
ReplyDeleteThe flag officers are of course concerned, and have moved their families well away, as well as expanded their offices in Hawaii and the club dining patio at K-Bay.
"The issues of Okinawa's defensibility go back 60 years"
DeleteTell us about the issues. What were they? Are they still relevant today? How so? What do you suggest to deal with them?
You're voicing a complaint, which is okay, but I'd rather you give us something specific and relevant to consider. You've introduced an issue(s), now follow through and make this an informative and useful comment!
@CNO: "Tell us about the issues."
DeleteHow about these metrics:
1) No more DoD schools or dependents (families) sent overseas, including flag officers. If it is safe enough for dependents, then there is no need for our troops. This will tend to limit the number of overseas personnel.
2) No large exchanges or other ‘nonessential’ bloat. I witnessed two USA colonels go on a shopping spree in Iraq at various PXs using H-47 helicopters (at $6,000 per flight hour) flying a ring route from FOB to FOB (Taji, BIAP/Victory, Republican Palace/Embassy, Liberty, etc.). This is BS in a peacetime overseas location, but insane during a ‘combat deployment.’
3) No American soldier, sailor, airman, or marine should be sent to serve on foreign soil if the Host Nation has reduced troop levels (hello Australia and Taiwan, two allies that have disestablished units or eliminated conscription). Before forward basing any troops, aircraft, or ships on foreign soil, DoD should report the force levels of the HN over the previous 10-years to Congress.
GAB
@GAB. I like the third one, not sure I agree or not, still have to think it over BUT I think at a minimum, should be looked into. If host nation is cutting their defense budget or cutting troop levels, then why are we still there? Or at least let's ask why we are there? Shouldn't the host nation be committed to their own defense, technically even without USA?!?
DeleteI have for some time questioned the viability of extreme forward-deployed personnel and bases. Other than possible trip wires to bring us into future conflicts, I am not sure what purpose they serve. This would apply to bases in South Korea and Okinawa, and at least some of the bases in Japan. I would pull back most, if not all, to at least Guam, and possibly Hawaii.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we can successfully contest China within the South China Sea because of their A2/AD and land-based air capabilities. That is why I have supported a containment policy.
But let me be very clear about what I mean by containment. China can operate within the South China Sea, but any attempt to break out beyond that will be vigorously opposed, as will any attempt by China to take over any part of the first island chain. So it's not let China have the first island chain and then contest them beyond that, it's deny China any part of the first island chain and restrict severely their ability to do anything beyond that.
Implementing that strategy requires more than military, it also must have significant economic and diplomatic components. The latter two are where we are pretty much completely dropping the ball today. I would start with the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, USA), then add CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK), then expand that to the British Commonwealth (brings in Malaysia and Singapore), and finally some kind of replacement Trans Pacific Partnership (bring in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, others). And each step would be modeled after NATO, which was a diplomatic, economic, and military alliance.
That's the framework of how I would propose to approach it. Concurrent goals would be to get manufacturing out of China, return essentials to the domestic USA economy, and non-essentials to NAFTA/USMCA or other alliance partners (could be carrots that we use to get them onboard). This would require substantial changes to current domestic tax and regulatory policies. The military objective would be to build back to JFK's "two and a half war" standard," basically be able to engage successfully both China in Asia/Pacific and Russia in Europe, while simultaneously prosecuting a rogue nation (Iran?) or terror group (al-Qaeda or progeny?).
"any attempt to break out beyond that will be vigorously opposed,"
DeleteThat's hilarious! You might want to keep up with current events. Your plan is already obsolete! China just signed a 75 year security agreement with Solomon Islands. From a news report,
"A draft of the pact, which was leaked online, revealed that Chinese warships could stop in the Solomon Islands at any time and that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could also deploy armed forces there “to assist in maintaining social order.”
Have you looked at a map of all the Chinese overseas bases and port lease arrangements? China bypassed your 'containment' long ago.
You need a new strategy.
"Have you looked at a map of all the Chinese overseas bases and port lease arrangements? China bypassed your 'containment' long ago."
DeleteBecause we have sat on our rear ends and allowed it to happen. If we get into the game and start seriously contesting, the way we did in western Europe after WWII, lots of things become posisble.
As far as the Solomons, that is an interesting development, but if we were actively denying China access to the few thousand miles of Pacific Ocean between the first island chain and the Solomons (very doable with Australia, Philipplines, and Indonesia on our side) that becomes almost a non-event.
I will agree 100% with you that if we continue to do nothing, we will very soon find ourselves up the creek without a paddle. But I'm not talking about where we are, I'm talking about where we need to be. And the best time to start getting there was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
As I keep saying, you need a new strategy. Your containment might have had a ghost of a chance two decades ago but it is completely negated today. China has already busted containment.
DeleteNow what do you propose?
"if we were actively denying China access to the few thousand miles of Pacific Ocean between the first island chain and the Solomons ... that becomes almost a non-event."
Really? How do you propose 'denying' China access to international waters and a signed agreement with Solomons? I'm very interested in your idea for this.
"As I keep saying, you need a new strategy. Your containment might have had a ghost of a chance two decades ago but it is completely negated today. China has already busted containment."
DeleteSo what are we going to do instead? We clearly are not going to go inside the China Sea and contest them in a wartime scenario against their land-based air and A2/AD. The best it would seem to me that we can do is stop their advance at some point.
I suppose that I would say that the problem with the Pacific pivot is that we never actually pivoted. It's time--no, well past time--to do it, but now is better than later. I'm not sure where the ceiling is. I suspect that dominating China inside the China Sea is out of reach, at least in the short run. But I think we need to figure out where the ceiling is, and how to get there ASAP.
Delete"Really? How do you propose 'denying' China access to international waters and a signed agreement with Solomons? I'm very interested in your idea for this."
DeleteIf we develop solid alliances with Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea, the Solomons are going to feel pretty isolated out there come wartime. It has to be a long-term effort by us, but one that is worth making.
It's easy to throw rocks at somebody else's ideas. You got a better one?
"the Solomons are going to feel pretty isolated out there come wartime."
DeletePlease check the distances on a map from Solomons to San Francisco, Pearl Harbor, Guam, and even Darwin. A Chinese base in the Solomons would be no more isolated than Pearl Harbor or Guam.
You're basing your fleet structure ideas on your containment concept which is already invalid. You need to reassess your strategy and then the fleet required to support it.
Generals usually fight last wars!
ReplyDeleteA couple days ago, Chinese media released a video of a new anti ship missile from a type 055 destroyer. Western media pointed this missile was rumored YJ-21 - long range hypersonic anti-ship missile. From its shape (bipyramid), it looked like a hypersonic missile. China has not yet confirmed if this is speculated YJ-21, only said that it was a new anti ship missile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaxSxvIMFws
On top of DF-21D, DF-26 long range anti ship ballistic missiles, if China has a long range hypersonic missile, then viability of carriers become questionable.
Of course, China also builts carrier but their plans of use are different. Their purpose is to expand defense circle and high up time thus nuclear power is not best choice (long maintenance time). They insist to use twin engine jets having long combat circle.
I don't agree with the sentiment to withdraw aircraft from places like Okinawa.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, you're either contesting China or you're not.
If not, then by all means pull back.
But if you plan to contest China, you need to do it.
Aircraft and ships close enough to defend allies...places like Okinawa, Subic Bay, Cam Rhan Bay.
Will they be a Day 1 priority for the Chinese? Absolutely.
But make them do it. Make them strike them all along with attacking Taiwan, etc.
And be smart, don't put too much in close. But combat power needs to exist there.
And harden those locations. Defend them like a carrier battle group. Make the Chinese expend quantities of ordinance to knock them out.
But to concede the defense of the first island chain is not a winning peacetime posture.
We need to project forward, not retreat.
Just my two cents.
Lutefisk