Tuesday, August 29, 2023

A Pacific [Baby] Step in the Right Direction

In 2011, then President Obama announced the Pacific Pivot to address the growing Chinese threat.  This led to … well … almost nothing.  Instead, the US watched as the Chinese continued to expand their holdings and influence, annexing the entire East and South China Seas, and making inroads on various Pacific countries and island nations. 
 
Notably, China established military agreements with Solomons Islands and others.  This was not particularly surprising as the US had made very little effort to confront China diplomatically.  The Solomons agreement seemed to finally awaken the US and spur at least some effort, minimal as it’s been.
 
Now, however, there are some small but potentially positive developments for, and by, the US. 
The United States signed a new agreement with Palau that gives American ships the authorization to unilaterally enforce maritime regulations in the tiny Pacific island nation's exclusive economic zone, the U.S. Coast Guard said Tuesday.[1] 
It is unclear whether this is an extension of the previous Compact of Free Association or whether it is an entirely new agreement. 
In the agreement, concluded a week ago, U.S. Coast Guard ships can enforce regulations inside Palau's exclusive economic zone on behalf of the nation without a Palauan officer present … [1] 
This would appear to give the US the right (and responsibility?) to confront China when it violates Palau territorial waters and economic zones.
 
In other developments, 
The U.S. has countered with diplomatic moves of its own, including opening an embassy in the Solomon Islands.
 
The agreement with Palau is similar to one concluded with the Federated States of Micronesia at the end of 2022, following which the U.S. Coast Guard has conducted boardings for the Pacific nation.
 
The U.S. also signed a bilateral defense agreement in May with Papua New Guinea, which will allow the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct boardings alongside its local counterparts in Papua New Guinea's exclusive economic zone for the first time later this year.[1] 
These recent agreements could be good, however, it depends on whether we’re willing to actually take action.  Will we forcibly remove Chinese ships that are violating protected waters or will we just stand by and do nothing as we’re doing in the Middle East where we just stand by and watch the Iranians attack and seize merchant ships?  Will this be another red line in the sand which, when crossed, we do nothing about?  Agreements mean nothing without force and action backing them up.  This is an opportunity for us to begin standing up to China with concrete, meaningful actions (unlike the worse-than-useless Freedom of Navigation exercises).
 
This is potentially a good step but I’m highly dubious that we’ll use the ability effectively.  This is most likely a tool that will remain in the toolbox, unused, as so many of our tools do.
 
 
 
___________________________
 
[1]Newsmax website, “US Given OK to Enforce Maritime Law Around Palau”, Copyright 2023 The Associated Press, 29-Aug-2023,
https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/u-s-pacific-palau/2023/08/29/id/1132492/

52 comments:

  1. To use the regulation effectively there should be a cutter foward deployed to the nation to ensure constant control. If there is no unit continously available for local control it means that the regulation cannot be enforced and it thus useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I do hope you are seriously pounding congress with mail for more funding for the Coast Guard (and better armament of said cutters) while to plane to deploy it all over the Pacific.

      Delete
    2. "more funding for the Coast Guard"

      Or ... we do as China would and designate Navy ships as Coast Guard. Problem solved.

      Delete
    3. " there should be a cutter foward deployed to the nation to ensure constant control."

      No need for constant forward deployment. We have total regional, networked awareness. I know we do because we're basing our entire future warfighting capability on that premise. So, whenever we see a Chinese asset approaching one of the partner countries, we send the nearest Navy ship, temporarily designated as a Coast Guard ship, to intervene. Problem solved.

      Isn't it great to have total regional awareness?

      Delete
    4. Responding to PK: Maybe I'm naïve, but this blog does inspire me to write my congressmen about accountability for Navy leadership, procurement, and the need to invest in munitions, maintenance facilities and production capacity. I'm one person, but I understand that they consider each message to represent ~100 voters (since so few actually write.) Better than doing nothing.

      Delete
    5. "write my congressmen"

      Outstanding! Salute to you! If every one of the thousands who read this blog would write their Congressmen, that'd be a great start.

      Delete
    6. The problem designating USN ships as Coasties is
      USN ships are way too grubby looking to pass as Coast Guard ships.

      Delete
    7. "Or ... we do as China would and designate Navy ships as Coast Guard. Problem solved."

      I don't think so. Part of the job is law enforcement and fits better with the USCG. Also it a byzantine but Cutter ops look cheaper on a day at sea rate for the USCG than the USN with it fleet of a lot more expensive ships. Also the USN does not build any more anything you can call a patrol craft. If the Navy is going to start buying and building up gunned versions of the Sentinel class I say you have a fine ideal. But the USN hates small boats and thus the Cyclone has no replacement.

      Delete
    8. "I don't think so."

      You're missing the concept. It's not about making a Navy ship a real Coast Guard vessel. It's about very temporarily designating a Navy ship as a CG just long enough to apply some force against a trespassing Chinese ship/aircraft. Actual routine law enforcement would be left to other assets, possibly an actual CG vessel.

      This temporary designation for the duration of a violation enforcement allows us to confront China without having to maintain a permanent CG forward deployment (though we may want to do that anyway) and without having to deploy additional ships. It's a far more efficient and cost effective approach.

      Delete
  2. "China established military agreements with Solomons"

    Not really, it is a policing agreement. China trains Solomon polices.

    To woe nations, include Pacific Nations, you need both carrot and stick. Apparently, many Right Wing Americans treat foreign aids as 4 letter words.

    If you don't spend money to help others but lecture them your 'value", no matter how precious you think they are, they are junks to these nations.

    Send highly paid American advisors to lecture them junk is NOT genuine foreign aids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " it is a policing agreement."

      No, it's an open-ended military basing agreement. Here's a post on the treaty. Note the part about basing at China's discretion WITHOUT needing the permission of the Solomons.

      "Chinese Seizure of Solomon Islands"

      Delete
    2. "If you don't spend money to help others"

      Aside from just dumping dollar bills out of an airplane onto the countries of interest, do you have any specifics about how much money, for what uses, and where the money would come from?

      Also, do you have any evidence that simply showering countries with money produces any positive result for us? For example, we've given Philippines lots of money over the years and have relatively little to show for it. For example, we've offered disaster relief to unfriendly countries and ... guess what? ... they're still unfriendly towards us.

      Delete
    3. $10m into the personal bank accounts of the leaders of these countries and a guarantee of a U.S. Green Card and non-extradition in the event of their having to flee the country would be better value for our money than 100 times that amount in ‘aid’.
      The Chinese would never do anything like that of course.

      Delete
    4. Genuine helps mean spending money in improving local economy which benefit most common people. For instance, build power plants (without ideological based "clean" whatever nonsense), roads, bridges, .... so most local people can see that they are benefitted.

      If we just watch China does so, at the same time, lecture local "American value", what will local think?

      Delete
  3. If we dont follow through with the agreements eith Palau and Papua...itll be the end of US influence opportunity in WestPac. So we'd better get some aggressive CG Cdrs and give them loose ROEs, and same if we substitute USN ships in the role. Or else...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see the USAF is promoting the common sense idea that I promoted for the Navy/Marine Corps a year ago to build several auxiliary air bases in the Marianas with prepo munitions and support equipment.

    Air Force expanding number of bases in Pacific over next decade
    https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/08/air-force-expanding-number-bases-pacific-over-next-decade/389834/

    Note this is low priority for the USAF. It demands extra funding, refusing to reprogram funding from BS elsewhere. For example, Osan:
    http://www.g2mil.com/osan.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the source you cite,

      "But the total number of bases is dependent on how much funding the Air Force receives ... "

      The article makes this sound like an unfunded, low priority, wish list that sounds nice on paper but never actually gets done. Those types of things never seem to actually get funded.

      You'll note that the mythical funding is over the next ten years whereas the military budgets in one year cycles. Multi-year budgeting rarely happens.

      So, good idea but it doesn't really seem like the AF is serious about it. How much did they fund for it this year? I don't know but I'm guessing none since it wasn't mentioned in the article. Will anyone in the AF even remember this for next year's funding? Even it they do, they'll have much higher priority items to fund.

      Delete
  5. Palau would be a great location for a naval air station, bridging the gap between Guam and the major naval base we should have on Mindanao.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder if Midway or Johnston islands could be used as maritime bases.

      Delete
    2. Maritime patrol bases for P8s

      Delete
    3. "Wonder if Midway or Johnston islands could be used as maritime bases."

      Check the distance from those to the South China Sea or Taiwan and then tell me how you envision them being useful bases. Also, tell me how you'd envision defending them.

      Delete
    4. "Palau would be a great location for a naval air station"

      After you've checked the distance from Palau to the South China Sea or Taiwan, tell me how you envision such an airbase being used (CONOPS for a base, essentially).

      Delete
    5. I was just thinking about extending maritime patrol out from our West coast.

      Delete
    6. As far as defense goes some fighter aircraft could based at these islands as well.

      Delete
    7. Of course radars and anti air assets would be needed to defend these bases .

      Delete
    8. "I was just thinking about extending maritime patrol out from our West coast."

      During peacetime, yes. During war, what can a large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft do?

      The AF has publicly acknowledged that large UAVs are non-survivable so I can't imagine, say, a P-8 Poseidon surviving.

      Delete
    9. "As far as defense goes some fighter aircraft could based at these islands as well."

      Again, what would fighter aircraft productively do thousands of miles away from the likely operating areas (South China Sea and Taiwan)?

      Just as with ship design, we need a CONOPS for an airbase!

      Delete
    10. "Of course radars and anti air assets would be needed to defend these bases ."

      Defend from what? Thousands of miles from any Chinese assets and with no offensive capability, the bases would be no threat to China and, therefore, no pressing reason for China to attack them.

      Be careful that you don't create a bases that exists only to defend itself !

      CONOPS, CONOPS, CONOPS!

      Come up with a good OFFENSIVE ('cause that's how you win wars!) CONOPS for a base thousands of miles from the combat areas and then you'll know whether it's worthwhile and what kind of assets to base there.

      Delete
    11. "After you've checked the distance from Palau to the South China Sea or Taiwan, tell me how you envision such an airbase being used "

      My intention during peace time to utilize that base primarily for ASW search and maritime patrol aircraft.

      In wartime it would still serve those functions and also serve as a road block for Chinese sea communications to any potential bases in the Solomons.

      It would also be a supplement to air bases in Guam and Mindanao, supporting them with aircraft and as a backup if those larger bases were rendered non-operational either temporarily or for an extended time.

      This would be a link in in the defense in depth centered on the second island chain.

      Lutefisk
      Lutefisk


      Delete
    12. To go a little bit deeper into my intentions for NAS Palau....it would be a small affair with light manning.

      It would have limited personnel and in peacetime would be used primarily for refueling and rearming.
      It would have facilities for those functions while also having hangars available for maintenance and keeping aircraft for short time periods.
      The personnel would not be permanently stationed there, but instead would be rotated in from Guam.

      I would have a similar arrangement for Subic Bay and Cam Rhan Bay, where I would have a light presence with personnel rotating into those bases from larger bases like Mindanao or Okinawa. They would serve as locations for aircraft to refuel and rearm, do light maintenance if needed, and give the aircrews a location to crew rest until they can continue missions.

      In wartime those locations would be as busy as circumstances allowed.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    13. "In wartime those locations would be as busy as circumstances allowed."

      So ... no CONOPS?

      So many people propose things that have attractive qualities IN ISOLATION but serve no purpose in war. This may be an example. What specific purpose beyond 'busy as circumstances allow' would a base in that/those locations serve? What offensive operations could they conduct? How would they contribute to attacks against China? How would they be defended? Thousands of miles away from operating areas ...

      Delete
    14. I don't really know how to document CONOPS, so I'll just say how I would use them.

      Palau's primary wartime mission would be as a base for fixed wing ASW recon in the Philippine Sea and surrounding areas.
      It would also be a base for fixed wing maritime patrols to locate enemy surface vessels attempting to cross the Philippine Sea and break out of the second island chain to the wider oceans, Solomon Islands, etc.

      The secondary mission for Palau would be to serve as an overflow location from airbases in Guam and Mindanao. Performing refuel/rearm, maintenance, or aircraft storage if those other airfields are put out of action, and continuing operations from Palau if needed.

      Cam Rhan Bay and Subic Bay air bases would, in wartime, be used to refuel and rearm aircraft conducting operations in the South China Sea. This would provide quick turnaround for strike aircraft and an ability to stay on station without returning to the primary air base or requiring in-flight tanker refueling.
      They would also be emergency landing locations for damaged aircraft.

      My comment of 'as circumstances allow' is that I think they would be getting pummeled by the Chinese...specifically because they would be so useful.

      But every asset that the Chinese need to expend to try and knock out Cam Rhan and Subic and keep them non-operational would then not be available to attack the primary airfields and would also not be available to interdict US Navy ships working in the Spratly Islands or in the vicinity of Taiwan.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    15. " attempting to cross the Philippine Sea and break out of the second island chain"

      Just a point of clarity, I think you mean the first island chain which includes the Philippines. The second island chain is Palau, the Marianas, etc.

      Watching the Philippine Sea is a valid mission. Neither Guam nor Palau are useful fighter bases, being a thousand plus miles from an operating area. This is the problem the US has in that region. Our few bases are too far away from operating areas. This is what I'm referring to when I ask about offensive operations.

      Now, as a naval refuel/resupply base, those could be useful.

      "Cam Rhan Bay and Subic Bay"

      Of course, you're assuming the unlikely event that we could actually secure basing rights at those locations.

      Cam Rhan Bay would be an awfully exposed, isolated, unsupported and unsupportable base!

      Subic Bay would be useful IF we could fully militarize the Philippines and establish an extensive defensive network of sites. If not, it too, would be isolated and exposed at the very far end of a long supply chain.

      You can see that the US has a challenging logistics and military support problem when confronting China which is operating in, essentially, their own backyard. That's why we need to very carefully lay out CONOPS for any bases we want. Failure to do so will result in destroyed bases.

      Unlike, say, Desert Storm, we will have to fight for any bases we establish and we haven't had to do that since early in WWII. I submit that we no longer remember how to do that and certainly aren't practicing for it or preparing for it. A handful of ballistic missiles and Palau is gone unless we establish an extensive defensive capability.

      Delete
    16. "Subic Bay would be useful IF we could fully militarize the Philippines and establish an extensive defensive network of sites."

      I know you have expressed caution about this several times before. I just got back a week or so ago after spending my summer at our home in the Phils. I had this conversation with a good number of people there, and there is minimal appetite for becoming a dart board in a game of Great Power darts. In fact, the people I spoke with are not thrilled with the relatively minor basing that has been allowed so far. China just isn't seen as a major threat to the Philippines, regardless of whether that's correct or not.

      I suspect the Philippines would likely be neutral.

      Delete
    17. "I suspect the Philippines would likely be neutral."

      I would rate that as a 90% likelihood. If so, that rules out any Philippine basing by the US unless we decide to invade Philippines. Of course, if we did that, that would belie our 'China evil, US good' theme!

      Delete
    18. I don't think neutrality is a realistic choice for the Philippines, even though I'm sure that the average Filipino would prefer that option.

      They're going to need to make a decision on where they are going to align, and I don't think it will be with China.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    19. @Lutefisk, I'm really interested in why you feel it would be more advantageous for the Phils to align with the US.

      Aside from the social aspects, where a big chunk of the Filipino population is descended from Chinese roots, there are overwhelming economic reasons not to rock the boat with China.

      A small anecdote. This summer, we drilled a new well and re-plumbed our entire house. I was watching where all the products involved came from. With the exception of the cement we used, every single piece was made in China. Then I looked around the house. Broadband fiber optic node - China, Wireless router - China, Fridge - Thailand, Stove and microwave - China. If you wander around Home Depot or Citi Hardware it looks like over 90% of the items are made in China.

      If the Philippines ever really angered China, serious trade sanctions would devastate the Philippine economy.

      https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/07/11/23/ph-trade-deficit-narrows-in-may-china-is-top-trade-partner

      So I'm not convinced that the Philippines would not try very hard to stay neutral. Aligning with the US would have very bad consequences, and aligning with China would be less damaging, but still undesirable.

      Delete
    20. @George...I understand the economic reach of the Chinese economy, but many of the products made here in the US are currently similarly sourced out of China.

      But that is now.
      These kinds of decisions are for the long term.
      I think that the Filipinos would be hitching their wagon to the wrong horse with the Chinese. I'm in the camp of China's future ain't what it used to be.

      Also, the Chinese way of aligning with a smaller country is much more like the mercantilist arrangement typical pre-WW2. The Chinese make the relationship work only for them.
      For all our faults, and we have plenty, you can't argue with the economic benefits for countries that align with us economically.

      This is not a consensus opinion, but I don't think the future is a Chinese one.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    21. "... many of the products made here in the US are currently similarly sourced out of China."

      Oops, that should have said products SOLD in the US.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  6. https://www.newsweek.com/china-map-borders-territory-dispute-claims-1823439
    "A new map of China's national borders has sparked protests from governments in Asia after its boundaries drew in the territories of its neighbors—including a small chunk of Russia."
    The complaints about this come from 6 SE Asian countries. i India is on the list of some territory claimed by China.
    There needs to be some diplomacy from the US to counter the Chinese !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There needs to be some diplomacy from the US to counter the Chinese !"

      Or, some forceful confrontation.

      Delete
    2. Agreed ! Thanks for your thought on this ( "or some forceful confrontation ")

      Delete
  7. RE: CONOPS for Palau:

    How about this for a first draft.

    Note that Palau is several hundred miles closer to both the South China Sea and Taiwan than Guam is. 12 or 13 hundred miles vs 1900 miles for the Spratly Islands region and 1300 or so miles vs 1600 or 1700 miles for southern Taiwan. Obviously these distances are still too large for fighter planes based on Palau to participate in the air superiority fight. But they are well within the combat radius of a P-8 in missile truck mode, where it flies out, fires standoff weapons several hundred miles from the target, and then flies back. In addition, a P-8 in that region will be far more survivable in this mode than in an ASW patrol mode.

    The P-8 today has four hard points on the wings that can handle the weight of JASSM/LRASM class weapons. While I don't believe those weapons are integrated today, I believe there is work going on.

    However, according to Wikipedia, the payload capacity of the P-8 is actually almost 20,000 pounds, which is enough for 8 JASSM/LRASM weapons. Maybe even a little more if we deleted some of the ASW-specific equipment. So I would suggest developing a modified P-8 (say a B-8) that is optimized for carrying JASSM class weapons and/or bombs. Probably plan on 8 JASMM/LRASM missiles. This would require either expanding the existing weapons bay (which is too small for this class of weapon) or adding external hard points, either on the wings or on the fuselage (or some mix of both). I'll leave it to the engineers to decide which approach has the least risk.

    A half-dozen P-8's attacking from Palau, with 8 LRASM each, could launch 48 LRASM at any Chinese fleet in the vicinity of Taiwan or the Philippines. Since JASSM/LRASM are much stealthier than Tomahawk or Harpoon, this would probably be a significant threat to any Chinese fleet. To make it a little more interesting for the Chinese, we could include MALD decoys in the attack, which, in addition to being decoys, often have jamming capability.

    Since the P-8 (based on the Boeing 737 airliner) is a fully tested, well understood airframe that is currently in full production, it shouldn't take 10 years to develop this bomber version.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Palau CONOPS, Part 2:

    This idea (of developing a bomber version of the P-8, is not unique to me. Other folks have also suggested variations of it, including here, by Tyler Rogoway at The War Zone:

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40859/the-case-for-stripping-the-p-8-poseidon-down-into-an-rb-8-multi-role-arsenal-ship

    A B-8 aircraft would not only be useful in this contingency. The Australians might also be interested in it, since the range of the P-8 would allow them access to much of the southern part of the South China Sea from Northern Australia or Christmas Island (which is owned by Australia).

    In addition, it would be very useful in offloading many of the missions in low-threat areas of the Middle East that have been burning up the service lives of our front line bombers for the last couple of decades. In addition to which, since it's based on a commercial airframe with largely commercial components, it's a lot cheaper to operate and maintain than either the B-1 or the B-52, much the the B-2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops. Just recalled after posting this that g2mil has also proposed something similar to this. Credit where credit is due.

      Errors, of course belong to me.

      Delete
  9. Palau CONOPS part 3:

    Of course, since B-8 aircraft based in Palau would mean that Palau would be a threat to any Chinese fleet attacking near Taiwan or the Philippines, we need to worry about defending the base.

    I see the major threat as being ballistic missiles (if the "Guam killer" can reach Guam, it can certainly reach Palau) or, somewhat less likely, cruise missiles launched from aircraft or submarines. I don't see an amphibious invasion as a realistic threat in the near future, but a commando raid launched from either aircraft or submarines might be a possibility.

    So, active defenses against ballistic and cruise missiles would be needed. Plus whatever electronic spoofing or camouflage capability we can come up with to mess with their targeting.

    In addition we should include all the passive protections that we don't normally do with our bases. Including rapid runway repair capability, distributed and hardened fuel supplies, maintenance supplies, and facilities to protect personnel, and so on.

    It may not be economic to build a shelter large enough for a Boeing 737 sized aircraft that can protect against large unitary explosives, but it may be possible to build a shelter than can protect against smaller attacks, like sub-munitions, smaller warheads, and small drones. We should look into that. In addition, in any case we need to distribute the planes well enough that the Chinese cannot take out a whole squadron with a single missile carrying submunitions. We need to make them use as many missiles as possible to do significant damage.

    Since a commando attack is a possibility, it may make sense to have some marines on the base to defend against that. Not a huge number. Maybe a company or battalion.

    And of course, there may be value in including a few fighter aircraft to defend against ships in the region that might try to fire on the base. And perhaps some ground based anti ship missiles as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like what was proposed by ComNavOps given in link below as in the quote:

      "What HAS (and any form of hardening) does is to eliminate the cheap kills and drive up the cost of achieving the desired degree of destruction. "

      https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/08/base-hardening.html

      Not to take away from your own contributions, which are worthwhile, of course. Speaking of defenses why not bring back naval rams for ramming China as in links below with our own naval rams as a midway point between live fire and "yelling in harsh language and making obscene gestures at Chinese ships "

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/01/15/huge-new-chinese-ships-are-made-for-ramming/?sh=566bde2f1c19

      https://news.abs-cbn.com/video/news/08/12/23/ph-navy-boat-nearly-rammed-by-chinese-ship

      Also our rammers needs some

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Protective_eyewear

      against lasers used by China's "Little Blue Men" below

      https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/china-deploys-little-blue-men-militia-water-cannons-lasers-ramming-tactics-conquer-key

      Maybe designed like the old torpedo rams to make them harder to hit with water cannons:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_ram

      Delete
    2. By the way ComNavOps had in link below suggested:

      "In fact, we need a purpose designed, basic (F-16-ish) interceptor specifically for forward base defense. "

      https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/05/base-defense.html

      Delete
    3. "That sounds like what was proposed by ComNavOps given in link below as in the quote:"

      Yup. It does sound like that. It should. I read it !!

      And I agree completely.

      Of course, if I got anything wrong, fault is mine not his.

      Delete
    4. "That sounds like what was proposed by ComNavOps given in link below as in the quote:"

      Yup. It does sound like that. It should. I read it !!

      And I agree completely.

      Delete
    5. RE: Ramming

      Well, if the Chinese are going to play in the coercion just short of bombs, bullets, and missiles mode, then yeah, we need to harden the construction of some ships too. Although this is more of a "quasi peace" capability than a war capability, since in an actual war both sides will of course throw everything they have (hopefully short of nuclear weapons) at the other.

      Delete
    6. "we need to harden the construction of some ships too"

      You may recall this post:
      Island Showdown

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.