Saturday, December 2, 2023

Re-Post - Will To Win

There has been a huge influx of readers over time and new readers may not be familiar with the early posts, although it is the reader’s responsibility to do so.  That being the case, I will, from time to time, offer re-posts, possibly updated, that I feel are particularly relevant and worthy of additional attention.

_____________________________ 

From Jun 2014, "Will To Win"
 
China has all but seized various islands and bits of land from the Philippines and Viet Nam and expanded and strengthened its claims on the entire East and South China Seas.  They have done this by establishing small outposts and oil rigs as well as by establishing the habit of regularly patrolling the disputed areas so as to establish the normalcy and, therefore, the acceptability and inevitability of their claims.  Add to this their use of air defense zones and their control over, and successful exclusion of, US ships and planes from areas of interest and the acquisition of the East and South China Seas is all but assured.
 
We must recognize this very clearly.  China is pursuing a policy of annexation through normalization.  Disputed territories are being patrolled on a regular basis so that over time other countries slowly come to accept the situation as normal.  The Air Defense Zone, while illegal in its implementation, is being enforced to establish the normalcy of the control.  The legal Economic Exclusion Zone is being illegally interpreted as a military exclusion zone with a goal of habitual enforcement to establish its legitimacy and normalcy.  Tiny outposts and oil wells are being established on disputed points of land (they barely qualify as islands) to establish normalcy of Chinese control over those points.  Eventually, most of these actions will come to be accepted (a fait accompli) and those that aren’t can be claimed to be legitimate through years of “ownership” (squatter’s rights or possession is nine tenths of the law) and presented to the court of world opinion as custom and tradition (common law).
 
The US appears to recognize that Chinese control over the region is undesirable and ought to be prevented.  Of course, we cannot hope to counter China’s expansionist movement alone.  The US must develop close ties with the Pacific countries in and around the East and South China Seas.  Ideally, we would also partner up with countries further away from the area but still invested in the events and results.  Together, this coalition may eventually be able to counter China’s moves.
 
Hmmm ….
 
Do you see the disconnect in the previous paragraphs?  China is able to pursue (successfully, so far!) its plans for regional domination with only its own internal forces and capabilities.  It is not part of a broad coalition of like-minded countries pursuing a mutually agreed upon conquest of the area.  It’s simply acting on its own.  The US, on the other hand, is seemingly paralyzed, unable to act without the backing of a coalition, despite having far greater military might, more resources, and a stronger economy (for the moment, anyway!).  Where is our will to act forcefully and, if necessary, unilaterally to achieve our goals?  Have we become so timid that we cannot and will not act alone?  Where is our will to win?  Lead, and others will follow - that's how you build a coalition.
 
I’m not going to address the political aspect of this (although recognizing that the political and military are intimately bound together!) since this isn’t a political blog.  Instead, let’s look at the military, specifically naval, actions that we can take, alone, to counter current Chinese moves.
 
The basis of China’s expansion is normalcy and the methodology is routine patrols and outposts in disputed areas to establish that normalcy.  We must counter that with our own routine patrols in disputed areas.  Ideally, every Chinese patrol ship should have a US ship sailing in close formation.  Ideally, the countries involved in the territorial disputes should establish their own tiny outposts with resupply and patrol support from us.  We should be routinely and heavily transiting the air defense zone and economic exclusion zone (EEZ) so as to invalidate Chinese normalcy and re-establish the normalcy of international rule and law of the sea.  We should emphatically re-establish our right of passage in international waters.

What we should not do is leave the 20-30 nm vicinity of a Chinese naval group in international waters when told to do so.  What we should not do is curtail flights and passages through illegal air defense zones and EEZ’s just to avoid confrontations.  What we should not do is allow the establishment of illegal outposts on disputed islands.
 
So, what do we need to accomplish these goals?  The overwhelming answer is numbers.  We need lots of ships and planes to establish routine patrols.  I can hear the whine, now:  “We can’t afford so many ships and planes.”  Well, that’s true in a sense.  On the other hand, can we afford to cede the entire East and South China Seas to China?  What will be the ultimate cost of that?  Can we afford to someday engage in a war with China in which they will have fortified the entire first island chain because we didn’t have enough ships and planes to prevent it?  Yeah, but even so, we just don’t have the budget to build additional ships and planes even if we wanted to.  Right and wrong.  We have the budget but we’re not spending it correctly.  Three Zumwalts aren’t going to appreciably help us with the Pacific Pivot but the $24B or so that they’ve cost would have bought a lot of aircraft and smaller ships (there’s a use for your frigate).  Even at a cost of $1B each, we could have built 24 frigates for the cost of three Zumwalts.  Which would be more useful in the Pacific Pivot, three Zumwalts or 24 frigates?  We could buy a lot of Super Hornets, UAVs, and patrol aircraft for what the JSF program is costing us.  The LCS could have been the patrol ship for this scenario except that it has no credible weaponry and insufficient range and endurance to operate for extended patrol periods.  Perhaps the coming upgunned LCS will have improved range and endurance and find a purpose, at long last.
 
The needs of a Pacific Pivot are fairly clear.  Now, we just need to align our procurement with our needs and muster the will to act.

25 comments:

  1. Unrelated topic. Some "news" about Ford:

    https://www.navytimes.com/naval/2023/11/28/early-ford-carrier-maintenance-costs-lower-than-planned-navy-says/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_nt&fbclid=IwAR3hraQgfBS8QWDMQkiLKLcHUUjvdNZBei0IQ4BntXO3YBEbFRhCv4wwtTo

    So USN still has some testing to finish?!? Also 1200-ish sorties for 2022 is about what, 4 a day on average? That doesn't seem like very stressful....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And 9000 miles? That's less than one round trip to the eastern Med. Maybe one reason why maintenance costs are coming in less than projected is that they're not pushing that baby very hard.

      Delete
    2. The Navy can't early retire a failed supercarrier the way they did with the failed LCS, so they'll just have Ford to essentially next to nothing forever, exaggerate anything that sorta works, and hope nobody asks too many questions.

      Bur what happens once half the carrier fleet is made up of ultra-expensive behemoths that have no use in a peer war? The world wonders.

      Delete
    3. Watch China's latest carrier which has started ejecting test recently. Let's see if its EMAL works or not. Unlike, USS Ford, China uses DC to supply electricity.

      Let's see if their tech works or not, how good/bad in comparison with USS Ford's EMAL.

      Delete
    4. I mean, it's China: unless the whole thing explodes they'll report a marvellous success and a great achievement of Maoist thought regardless of what actually happens.

      Delete
    5. " Let's see if its EMAL works or not."

      Unless you have inside sources in the Chinese military that you'd like to share, we'll never know whether their efforts work or not. They aren't going to publish results like we do.

      Delete
  2. "On the other hand, can we afford to cede the entire East and South China Seas to China?"
    Well... that's the real question isn't it? I like this post since it gets to the heart of the issue. Why should we fight them, and how much effort should we put into it? I think we would eventually win an all-out war with the entire country mobilized, but I don't see why it's actually worth it.

    Do you you want to enlist and go die to defend some tiny island you've never heard of? I don't. And I don't want to pay massively higher taxes for that, either (a serious naval arms race wouldn't just cost billions, it would cost *trillions*). Especially when the locals of those island seem kind of ambivalent in defending themselves. If they were like Ukraine, fighting to the death for their freedom, then yes absolutely we help them. But I'm worried that most Pacific war situations would be more like the government of South Vietnam. Corrupt, ineffective governments that do not command the full loyalty of their people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't see why it's actually worth it."

      Why is it worth ensuring the protection of a significant portion of the worlds shipping which, eventually, in one way or another, reaches us to our receivers? That should be obvious.

      Why is it worth ensuring that a demonstrated dictatorship, bent on global domination, should be allowed free rein and control over world shipping? That should be obvious.

      Why is it worth maintaining and protecting our most strategic military 'base', Taiwan? That should be obvious.

      Why is it worth controlling the Chinese in a smaller area (South China Sea) rather than a bigger one (the entire Pacific) if we're going to have to eventually confront them, anyway? That should be obvious.

      And on and on.

      Delete
    2. "Why is it worth ensuring the protection of a significant portion of the worlds shipping which, eventually, in one way or another, reaches us to our receivers? That should be obvious."

      You've mentioned before that you're not in favor of forward deployments and would prefer to have the bulk of the navy stateside on short duration missions to conduct training. How do you balance that preference with the the need you've identified for long duration forward deployments in protection of merchant shipping lanes?

      Delete
    3. "How do you balance that preference with the the need you've identified for long duration forward deployments in protection of merchant shipping lanes?"

      I've answered that question or variations thereof repeatedly throughout the blog. In fact, I essentially answered the question in this post at December 6, 2023 at 1:29 PM. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're genuinely asking rather than simply being argumentative and I'll repeat myself, yet again.

      Long term forward deployments have no objective and no possible benefits and are, therefore, not worth doing. In stark contrast, ACTIVE protection of shipping is a MISSION with clear objectives and clear BENEFITS and, as such, is well worth doing. Note, however, that the specific task of shipping lane protection is NOT an aimless cruise around the world but a MISSION with specific tasks. It also assumes a willingness (and even desire) to confront China, forcefully, if necessary - a mission, by any definition!

      The vessels involved would NOT be assigned for months on end, just sailing back and forth. They would execute specific tasks related to the overall objective and, after a relatively short period of time (4-8 weeks, perhaps), return to base and be replaced by other ships.
      It should also be pointed out that ACTIVELY protecting the shipping lanes is not just a naval activity. It would involve aircraft, subs, land forces, Coast Guard, etc. It would also involve high level, FORCEFUL political measures (trade war, tariffs, sanctions, banking actions, etc.). It would be a 'whole of government' mission - a geopolitical strategy in the truest sense.

      I trust that clears up your confusion?

      Delete
  3. Zumwalts and LCS were designed to combat insurgent regional power like Iraq, Iran, ... not a powerful navy, thanks to Bush Jr. Administration set this strategy which we lament today.

    Will, whose will?

    If you read news, Vietnam has basically given up relying on US but mend relations with China. They have decided to go through negotiations to settle disputes with China.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Zumwalts and LCS were designed to combat insurgent regional power like Iraq, Iran, ... not a powerful navy"
      If that's the case why aren't we deploying Zumwalts and majority of LCS in Indian Ocean under the Fifth Fleet

      Delete
    2. It will free up ships in fifth fleet, which can be deployed in Pacific

      Delete
    3. Zumwalts has less VLS than Burke even though it is much bigger. Its stealthy is useless in a carrier battle group since other ships are not stealthy.

      Delete
    4. "Its stealthy is useless in a carrier battle group since other ships are not stealthy."

      This is patently false. Stealth will allow the individual ship to have a better chance of survival in an attack even if the rest of the group is not stealthy. Come on, this is basic understanding of stealth concepts. Get educated and get up to date. Read, "Stealth for Dummies"

      Delete
  4. I agree with Ack-acking.

    What's our national interest in keeping the SCS clear? Otherwise enables China to move on Viet Nam land-wise? Go ahead and try. China has experience. And so even if China takes Viet Nam, so what? National implications beyond Nike are... What?

    Let China take every single country up to Bangladesh- India might object to Bangladesh; and might not. Dunno. Don't think I care. Not worth our national blood and treasure. Not worth our blood; let's stop there.

    Losing the Mallacan Straits will absolutely hurt (guys, please look at a globe and compare that to shipping routes). But as long as we hold Malaysia and Indonesia we can still get oil to Japan. Which is what counts. PLEASE, ComNavOps, publish a picture of the worlds oil routes. And nope. China can't take SE Asia plus Malaysia plus Indonesia all in the same weekend/month/year/decade. BTW, IF China takes everything up to and including the Malaccan Straits the interdiction possibilities for the US are. still ... Wonderful. Go look at a globe.

    Yeah, Taiwan is a problem. But we can fix that loss within 3-5 years. Why Intel Corp isn't currently working on becoming the Fab to Western Civ is beyond me. Clearly they can no longer survive on their x86 design work. But there's a place in the world for PRODUCTION.

    Problematically. There's a establishment desire for stasis. We seemingly want to preserve the world we know. Keep borders static. That drove the Bush-Senior administration. They didn't want to see the Soviet Union unravel they just wanted to see it more reasonable/rational. You can see it with Biden Admin. They don't want to see Ukraine win, hence slow-walking weapons transfers, but would rather see a stalemate that preserves status quo. With Russia, despite Russian ambitions, fully intact.

    I'm done with Team America World Police. Let others defend their own countries. Or not. Let them form their own regional coalitions to defend against a larger enemy. Or not. Their cultures don't want ours (cf Iraq and Afghanistan) so leave them to themselves.

    BTW, you want the over or the under whether Taiwan already has nukes? I digress-

    Bottom line? Give South China Sea to China. Extract reciprocity for the Western Hemisphere. And let the devil take the hindmost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mostly agreed, however:

      1) US "leadership" (major euphemism here) both civilian and military is extremely low quality, which has implications.

      2) USA not only player on that board: as an example, if ROC ("Taiwan") is attacked and USA decides not to fight but JAP does, what then?

      Delete
    2. "What's our national interest in keeping the SCS clear?"
      -> To Keep International Trade and Trade Routes under our Control

      "Taiwan Problem" is not about its "Semiconductor Industry", Its about its "Geographic Location"
      -> If we want to rule over Pacific Ocean, we need Taiwan and other neighboring nations under our Leadership, not under China.

      "I'm done with Team America World Police. Let others defend their own countries"
      -> Are you out of your mind?, we DON'T police the world for FREE, we do it because it's Beneficial for us both Economically (US Businesses) and Politically (US Administration)

      "Give South China Sea to China"
      -> If you do that then its just the Beginning, they won't stop there.
      They will make some excuses and then ask for Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Panama, etc.

      Delete
    3. "Losing the Mallacan Straits will absolutely hurt (guys, please look at a globe and compare that to shipping routes)."
      It seems very unlikely that China would blockade like the Malacca Strait like the 19th century UK since their economy depends on global free trade, even more than ours does. If, for some reason, they did that, I agree that would be Casus Beli for a naval war, but hopefully a limited one.

      Anonymous- "If you do that then its just the Beginning, they won't stop there.
      They will make some excuses and then ask for Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Panama, etc."
      Don't you think there is a huge difference between uninhabited small islands in the South China Sea and, say, Hawaii? This is *exactly* the sort of Vietnam war domino theory nonsense that I'm worried about. People will go to war over pointless bullshit because they're afraid of some fantasy scenario ("this leads to that and then China lands in California!!!") which would never happen.

      Delete
    4. "I'm done with Team America World Police"

      You seem to have a very naive, uninformed view of global economics and politics. Our economy is not divorced from the rest of the world. As the world's economies go, so goes ours. I won't bother explaining how and why that is so. It's too basic and obvious. We protect the world's shipping, for example, in order to protect our own economy.

      Yes, it would be nice if other countries made a more significant contribution and we should be pushing hard for them to do so but to think that we can pull back with no repercussions for ourselves betrays a total lack of understanding of global economic interactions.

      Delete
    5. "It seems very unlikely that China would blockade like the Malacca Strait"

      Perhaps not but I could certainly see them regulating traffic, imposing 'fees', demanding favored status in exchange for allowing passage, imposing sanctions and limitations on the type of cargoes allowed, conducting searches at a whim and seizing cargoes that support their enemies, etc. Would you want that?

      Delete
    6. Diplomatic effort needs to be exerted on Thailand to remain in the US sphere. Every year, the Chinese government promises the Thais money to dig a canal through the Kra Isthmus, which would allow chinese shipping to bypass the Strait of Malacca, and the Thai government today is quite pro-chinese - they've even invited the Chinese government to send police to conduct law enforcement and population protection missions on Thai soil! And let's not get into how their Navy, which is China-aligned, is bending over backwards to purchase Chinese subs and warships.

      (The Thai Army, meanwhile, is - for now - American aligned, having purged the pro-China faction, while the Air Force remains firmly American-aligned. Sasuga thailand!)

      Delete
  5. I'm not arguing so much with anything you say here, but how do you square the idea of regular patrols in the South China Sea with your oft repeated dislike for freedom of navigation patrols? Don't they essentially spring from the same idea - making the free passage of ships in the area routine?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't 'square' them at all because they're two completely different concepts executed under completely different philosophies.

      Freedom of Navigation exercises are useless and worse than useless because they actually strengthen and support China's illegal territorial claims since we conduct them under the rules of UNCLOS which are a set of rules governing the passage of ships through another country's territorial waters. Thus, every time we do a FONOPs, we implicitly recognize China's fraudulent claims!!!!!

      In total contrast, the actions described in the post are those required to forcefully CONTEST China's claims and render their strategy of normalization ineffective.

      In other words, FONOPs are a form of appeasement that accomplishes nothing and has no purpose whereas the post describes active confrontation and negation of China's attempted actions. One is a pointless and meandering with no strategy at its foundation while the other is the execution of a specific strategy with specific objectives.

      Now do you understand?

      Delete
    2. "I'm not arguing so much with anything you say here,"

      Feel free to argue. I prefer discussion as opposed to arguing which is an attempt to 'win' but feel free to disagree. Just be prepared to present facts and support your position, if you do so. I very much like disagreement but so few people do so with facts and logic. It's typically based on 'feelings' and I tear those apart.

      Delete

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