Changing the Calculus

You’ve probably heard, by now, about the Navy’s AIM-174B air-to-air missile.  It’s a Standard SM-6 surface to air missile adapted to be air launched from F-18 Hornets.  The key characteristic of this missile, in this role, is its 200-300 mile range.  There is no exact published spec on the range, yet, but the ship launched version has a range of 150 – 290 miles, depending on the flight profile.  Various reports suggest that the air launched range is 300+ miles. 
 
Other performance characteristics of note include a weight of around 1,900 pounds, a length of more than 15 feet, a speed of up to Mach 3.5, and an impressive 140-pound blast-fragmentation warhead. In comparison, the Sidewinder has a 20 lb warhead and the AMRAAM has a 44 lb warhead.
 
Of course, this performance comes at a staggering cost of $4.3M per missile.[1]
 

AIM-174B

This missile is intended to be the very long range air to air missile (VLRAAM) that’s been missing from the inventory and is an answer to the very long range Chinese and Russian air to air missiles.  The Chinese have the PL-15 which is reported to have a range of 120-190 miles and a speed of Mach 5, the PL-17 which is reported to have a range of 250-310 miles and a speed of Mach 6, and the PL-21 which has a reported range of 190+ miles.  The Russians have the AA-13 (R-37) Arrow which has a reported range of up to 250 miles and a speed of Mach 6.  A similar, though shorter ranged US missile is the AIM-260, currently under development.  It is reported to have a range of 120 miles and a speed of Mach 5.

 
This category of very long range, very fast missile is a severe problem for high value units such as tankers and E-2 Hawkeyes.  We’ve discussed the impact of this missile and noted that it could force our Hawkeyes, in particular, to operate so far back from the aerial battle as to lose awareness and control which is, of course, the doctrinal key to US aerial combat.  This would, for example, cede aerial supremacy to the Chinese over Taiwan in the event of an invasion.  Our carrier aircraft would be unable to operate effectively in the area with each aircraft forced to operate independently instead of with the benefit of an all-seeing controller.  It would also force each aircraft to radiate instead of remaining emissions silent and allowing the E-2 to detect and designate targets.  The negative impact of Chinese very long range air to air missiles (VLRAAM) cannot be overstated.
 
 
Targeting
 
This is, as always, the crucial and limiting factor.  A 300+ mile missile is useless if we can’t generate targeting at that range.  No fighter radar is going to see modern enemy fighters at anything approaching that range and certainly not enemy stealth fighters.  My best semi-informed guess is that a fighter won’t see an enemy stealth fighter until 20 miles or less.
 
In a match up between the Navy’s F-18, the only plane currently designated to carry the AIM-174B, and an enemy stealth fighter, the enemy is going to get first detection every time.
 
A large radar plane (AWACS or E-2 Hawkeye) might be able to see enemy fighters at somewhat longer ranges but, still, nothing approaching 300+ miles.  So, where do we get targeting for these missiles?  There are a few viable options.
 

• The F-35 (or the occasional F-22 from Guam?) might have the stealth to get close enough to provide targeting against HVUs (though not enemy stealth fighters).  HVUs are not stealthy and are relatively easily detected.  Note: this is one reason I’ve called for stealthy ‘Hawkeyes’, possibly based on the B-21 (see, “B-21 Hawkeye”), to thwart enemy attacks against our HVUs.
• A B-2/21 equipped with passive sensors could be used to provide targeting although it is questionable whether it would be worth the risk.
• Taiwan ground assets might well be able to provide targeting, particularly using passive EO and IR sensors.  It would be almost impossible for the Chinese to completely eliminate this kind of small, non-radiating, hard to find asset.

 
The reverse case of the Chinese providing targeting for their VLRAAMs is interesting.  They would have their own stealth aircraft to provide targeting, land based over- the-horizon radars, and suicide aircraft.  The latter is concerning.  The Chinese do not have the same view of the value of the individual pilot that we do and the idea of sending throwaway fighter aircraft on semi-suicide runs straight at our HVUs, either to shoot them directly or to provide targeting for remote VLRAAM shooters, is viable and concerning.  From the Chinese perspective, if they can trade a handful of second tier fighters to kill a US HVU, that would be a win for them.  The Russians essentially had this as the cornerstone of their anti-carrier strategy during the Cold War.  They were doctrinally willing to sacrifice many Tu-95 Bear search aircraft to provide detection and targeting for their naval aviation bomber regiments.
 
 
Taiwan Scenario
 
The problem with any contemplation of a Taiwan-centered war with China is that it presents a massive advantage for China due to physical proximity.  The skies over Taiwan can safely be assumed to be packed with Chinese aircraft and only occasionally challenged by US sorties from Guam, if it remains operational or carrier aircraft.  The advantage becomes all the greater for Chinese aviation through their uncontested use of AEW and EW aircraft supporting the aerial fight from a safe distance.  Until now, we simply didn’t have a VLRAAM of our own to threaten Chinese AEW and EW aircraft.
 
Conversely, Chinese VLRAAM missiles would be used to push US AEW, EW, and tanker aircraft back, thereby relinquishing control of the air battle.
 
For many decades, US military operations have assumed aerial supremacy.  Chinese VLRAAMs have upended that assumption.  Now, however, the AIM-174B offers the ability to regain control of the aerial battle or, at least, force an even contest (which is not how you want to fight but it’s better than fighting from a disadvantaged position!).
 
 
Summary
 
The AIM-174B VLRAAM offers the possibility of establishing aerial supremacy (or, at least, equality) in the Taiwan scenario.  The key, as always, is targeting.  As usual, the US military has focused on the weapon and ignored the sensor/targeting issue.  We should be working just as hard at solving the targeting issue.
 
We also need to be working on tactics for the Taiwan scenario and I guarantee that we have not addressed this in any realistic fashion.  We need to figure out how best to deploy the AIM-174B and how best to take advantage of the opportunities it creates.  Will this allow our F-18s to fight with a reasonable chance of success or is the F-18 simply outclassed by Chinese aircraft?  Are there tactics that can make the F-18 effective?  This, by the way, is why I’ve repeatedly called for a new, very long range, stealthy, air supremacy carrier fighter and end this idiotic combination strike-fighter nonsense that produces an aircraft that is neither a good strike asset nor a good fighter.
 
We can win the Taiwan aerial battle but it means focusing on what’s important and letting go of our paradigms.  We need new approaches, new tactics, and new aircraft optimized for the Chinese war.  The AIM-174B is one piece of the puzzle but we can’t stop there, as we are almost certain to do.  We need to develop the accompanying tactics and fighter aircraft that will take advantage of the AIM-174B.  And no, we can’t simply stand off and lob these missiles into the skies over Taiwan.  The missiles are far too expensive, complex, and time-consuming to produce to ever have that kind of inventory.
 
We’ve taken the first step.  Now, we need to finish the job.
 
 
 
______________________________

 
[1]https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/aim-174b-is-navys-new-air-launched-missile-a-hypersonic-killer/

Deadly Fish

Gotta get closer to shore, the Captain thought.  They were already dangerously, recklessly close with only a few feet of water under the keel but safety – and surprise – lay to the starboard, landward side of the ship, not the open ocean to port even though every sailor’s instinct told him to veer off and make for open water. 
 
A few whispered commands and more than a few discrete, disbelieving looks from the immediate crew and the ship inched closer to shore.
 
If any ship could carry out this mission, the Captain knew, it was this one.  The ship was a Fletcher II class destroyer – a true destroyer, not some unholy, underarmed, unarmored, cruiser size ship that was designated a destroyer to keep Congress from asking inconvenient questions.  This was a ship built to fight and kill.  The ship was designed with maximum radar, IR, and acoustic stealth to be as nearly invisible as was possible.  It mounted four 5” guns, dozens of CIWS and SeaRAM mounts, and a main battery of 10x 650 mm torpedoes in two quintuple, centerline, rapid reload launchers, one midships and one nearer the stern to provide separation in the event of battle damage.
 
Right now, the ship, and her five squadron mates were on their way to knock out the southern Chinese invasion fleet that, along with a middle and northern fleet, had been attacking Taiwan at three separate sites for the last five weeks.  The Taiwan forces had managed to absorb the initial assaults at great cost but were losing as the Chinese continued to pour reserve forces and supplies into the assaults.  Something had to give.
 
The preferred method of attack against the invasion fleet had been the anti-ship cruise missile but US stocks (and Chinese stocks!) had been quickly depleted in the first three weeks and had proven largely ineffective against the Chinese version of Aegis.  The US had believed in the effectiveness of their own Aegis system so it should have come as no surprise to US planners that the Chinese version (copied and improved from Aegis) would also be effective.  Yes, there had been several Chinese ships of various types sunk or knocked out of the fight but the Chinese pre-war numerical advantage and close proximity to the assault had allowed them to absorb the hits with almost no operational impact.
 
The US had targeted the amphibious and supply ships which, in hindsight, had been a mistake as it exposed the attacking cruise missiles to the full depth of the escort’s protective anti-air defensive layer.  Relatively few of the thousands of missiles launched over the weeks had gotten through.  The Navy’s Tomahawk Block V, while lauded by Navy leadership pre-war, was still, essentially, 1980’s technology with a few added enhancements mostly related to networking and remote communications which had no actual combat value.  It was, for all practical purposes, the 1980’s Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM).  While the range was impressive at 1000 miles, the missile lacked the supersonic speed, terminal maneuverability, and on-board countermeasures to successfully penetrate the Chinese Aegis defenses.  Range without lethality was pointless, as the Navy had found out the hard way.
 
The Navy’s air-launched Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) had had greater success but the Navy had unwisely cancelled production in anticipation of a Next Generation LRASM (NG-LRASM) and, thus, inventories were very small and the missiles were depleted in the first two weeks.
 
Thus, it was that the Fletcher II class squadron found itself skimming the southern shore of Taiwan, literally hugging the coast to blend their already minimal radar signatures with the returns from the land as they proceeded single file at 30+ knots with just 50 m bow to stern separation between ships.  This was insane sailing by any peacetime standard but was now the preferred tactic for this mission.  Only by getting lost in the land’s radar and acoustic clutter could the ships hope to survive long enough to reach their launch point.
 
The destroyers had broken off from escorting a resupply convoy as it pulled into Hualien during the early evening as darkness was descending.  Hualien was a major port on the central, east coast which was protected by mountains and had become a natural convoy destination.  It was 170 miles from Hualien to the southern tip of Taiwan – around five and a half hours sailing at the destroyer’s best speed.  The Chinese had seen convoys come (some badly battered, some largely untouched) and go from Hualien repeatedly and one more convoy went unremarked by Chinese infiltrators watching from the heights.  The appearance or disappearance of a handful of escort destroyers didn’t attract the attention of the Chinese army infiltrators who didn’t really know or care about naval matters.  The destroyers were just ships going about their convoy escort duties as they had done dozens of times before. 
 

Map of Taiwan

 

Now, the destroyer squadron rounded the southern tip of the island, just seventy or so miles to the Chinese invasion fleet.  Another five miles and the squadron reached the launch point.  Every additional mile from this point on significantly increased the risk of detection.
 
One after another, the destroyers pivoted away from the shore to unmask their centerline torpedo launchers and began the launch, rapid reload, launch cycle.  Each ship carried 40 torpedoes and the squadron launched a total of 240 torpedoes in under ten minutes before reversing course to head back the way they came, their mission complete.
 

Southern Tip of Taiwan

As the wave of torpedoes approached the invasion fleet at their 30 kt cruising speed, they stayed near the shore where the surf noise helped mask their motor noise.  At around five miles, however, the torpedoes spread out along a ten mile front perpendicular to the shore.  This set up a ten mile wide sweep through the invasion fleet’s location.
 
At this point, the outlying fleet escorts began to pick up the acoustic signatures of the approaching torpedoes and, after a few more minutes of indecisiveness, confirmed the detection of the torpedoes and sounded the alarm.  The ships that were moving began to turn away and scatter to the north while those that were stopped or anchored began, frantically, to get underway.  Ironically, the initial reaction of the outer ships, which was to turn away from the threat, wound up bringing them closer to the main amphibious fleet and had the effect of concentrating the targets for the torpedoes.
 
With so little warning, there was no hope of escape as the torpedoes accelerated to their terminal attack speed of 60 kts.  The torpedoes began sensing individual targets and their simplistic programming resulted in them locking onto the nearest valid target, often multiple torpedoes per target.  The torpedo designers had purposely omitted any attempt at sophisticated target discrimination, acoustic imaging, networked smart allocation of targets, or any other worthless action that contributed nothing but cost to the torpedo.  These torpedoes were ‘dumb’.  They would go after the first target they saw that met some basic criteria.  This meant inefficient allocation of weapons but the designers realized that the solution to that was numbers.  If you could put enough weapons in the water, it didn’t matter how inefficient they were.  These torpedoes were the equivalent of area bombardment.  They would attack any target and amongst a Chinese invasion fleet, any target was a good target.
 
The Chinese ships frantically fled, twisting and turning to avoid the incoming torpedoes.  There were a few collisions and many near misses but, ultimately, it did no good.  A ship might evade one torpedo but the seeming endless wave of torpedoes ensured that another torpedo would lock on.  The first torpedoes began impacting and explosions and fires began dotting the sea.  The wave of torpedoes continued on.  Inevitably, by pure chance, some ships escaped being targeted and survived but the southern flank of the invasion fleet was devastated and disrupted.
 
The wave front of torpedoes continued on, passing through the escorts and impacting the largely motionless amphibious ships.  Ship after ship took hits, ripping the guts out of the invasion.  By the time the torpedoes passed through the center of the fleet and began approaching the northern escorts, there were few torpedoes left but even those few managed to completely disrupt the escorts, causing them to flee further north.
 
With the Chinese invasion fleet broken and the carefully networked Aegis-like air defense completely disrupted, a carefully timed B-2/21 bomber force, heavily supported by electronic warfare aircraft and led by an F-22 fighter sweep, hit the surviving ships of the invasion fleet with a barrage of various close range air dropped weapons.  This kind of close attack couldn’t have succeeded if the escort force was still intact, networked, and integrated.  The destroyers, however, had seen to that threat.  As the bombers and fighters pulled off their attack and headed home, the Chinese southern invasion fleet had, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist, providing some badly needed relief to the Taiwan defenders and allowing the defensive forces to concentrate on the middle and northern invasion sites.
 
 
 
 
_______________________
 
The Torpedo

Don’t believe the torpedo described in the story could exist?  Consider these range specifications for real torpedoes.
 
 
US Mk48 Torpedo
Range: 
38 km (24 mi; 21 nmi) at 55 kts
50 km (31 mi; 27 nmi) at 40 kts
 
Type 65 Soviet 650 mm Torpedo
Range:
50 km (31 miles) at 50 kts
100 km (62 miles) at 30 kts
 
Is it that big a leap to believe the torpedo described in this story could exist?
 
Story Torpedo
Range: 
137 km (85 miles; 74 nmi) at 30 kts with 60 kt terminal attack speed
 

 
Story Aspects
 
This story demonstrates, among several other things, the value of a very basic weapon.  The imagined torpedoes have been designed with none of the wire guidance, multi-mode seeker, acoustic imaging, etc. that drives up cost, consumes internal volume, increases production complexity which decreases production rates, requires complex software, and adds little combat capability improvements.  Thus, the internal volume savings can be devoted to additional fuel and/or a larger warhead.
 
Simpler, easier to produce, cheaper, and just as lethal – what’s not to like?

  
The story also demonstrates the value of an optimized, specialized weapon system, the destroyer, whose sole primary purpose was anti-surface/torpedo.  A multi-function ship with just a few torpedoes could never hope to achieve the kind of wholesale, efficient destruction described in this story.  The entire navy wouldn’t be composed of these ships, of course.  It would just be one or two squadrons worth.  The rest of the fleet would be a mix of various other ships, each with their own specialization.  This gives the operation planner a menu of specialized ships to choose from instead of being forced to use just one ship type which isn’t optimized for any one function (hi, Burke!).
 
 
Yet another aspect of the story is that it Illustrates the profligate expenditure of weapons (many readers will be shocked by the number of torpedoes used, having completely forgotten what real missions require in a true war) which is  characteristic of every real war in history and totally absent from every pre-war plan in history.
 
 
Missions
 
Additional mission examples for a torpedo destroyer might include:
 

• Sinking merchant ships in a blockade scenario, something that the current Navy surface ships would have a very difficult time doing.
• Launching specialized recon torpedoes (USV) for recon of harbors, shorelines, chokepoint passages, etc.
• Land attack using torpedoes with suitable fuzing against docks, dry docks, shoreline facilities, etc.
• Destruction of causeways being used to unload ships
• Anti-ship attack from over the horizon using with the aid of spotter UAVs
• Convoy escort

 
 
Fun Facts:
 
From Wiki:

• The torpedo inventory of the U.S. Navy in 2001 was 1,046 Mk-48 torpedoes.
• In 2017 Lockheed's production was approximately 50 per year.
• Mk48 production ended in 1996.  Production restarted in 2016 with initial deliveries in 2022, as best I can tell.

 

Disclaimer:  As always (and always ignored!), this is not intended to be a true combat simulation.  It is intended to illustrate some concepts in a more readable - and hopefully enjoyable - format.

Why the Last Post?

Some of the comments from the last post, “Defending Taiwan”, led me to believe that not everyone grasped the purpose of the post.  To be fair, I didn’t spell out the purpose although it’s been ‘spelled out’ throughout the blog.
 
The purpose of the post was not to provide a scenario that people could jump on and criticize (though that’s a favorite sport among readers of any blog!).  The purpose was to offer a likely scenario (Chinese invasion of Taiwan and US defense against the invasion) and a means (a strategy) of addressing that scenario (carriers, subs, locations, strategy, etc.) with the objective of examining the operational, tactical, and asset requirements to execute the scenario strategy.
 
The scenario gives us the specific requirements that should be driving our strategy, military force structure, doctrine, tactics, and procurement.
 
This is analogous to my constant harping on CONOPS, CONOPS, CONOPS which should drive ship design.
 
In this case, it’s OPERATIONS, OPERATIONS, OPERATIONS which should drive force structure and capabilities.
 
OPERATIONS, of course, are derived from STRATEGY, STRATEGY, STRATEGY.
 
Isn’t it neat how, if you do this correctly, each step flows logically from the preceding one?  But, I digress …
 
With a specific scenario and strategy defined, we can now proceed to examine force structure by examining the required operations.  For example, 

• How many subs do we need?  Operations will tell us that.
• What kind of aircraft do we need?  Operations will tell us that.
• How big an air wing do we need?  Operations will tell us that.
• What kind of ASW effort do we need?  Operations will tell us that.
• How many carriers do we need to defend Taiwan?  Operations will tell us that.
• How do we logistically support a Taiwan defense fleet?  Operations will tell us that.

And so on.
 
The Navy’s approach is to build something … anything … and then try to get it into the hands of the sailors so that they can tell leadership what the ship can do.  This, of course, is a heaping pile of stupid on a plate.  CONOPS tells you what to design and then you tell the sailors how to use it, not the other way around.  Similarly, Operations tells us what kind of force structure and capabilities we need.
 
Thus, scenarios like this give us the basis for intelligent discussion of force structure.  That was the purpose of the post.

Defending Taiwan

Let’s assume China makes an invasion of Taiwan part of whatever war they initiate.  In fact, this is an absolute certainty since they can’t allow an enemy base of operations to exist just a hundred miles off their mainland.  Let’s further assume that the US opts to defend Taiwan (by no means a certainty).  How would the defense play out from a US Navy perspective?
 

 
Carrier Activity
 
The main function of a carrier group would be to provide air cover for Taiwan.  Basically, this becomes a large scale battle for air superiority to relieve Taiwan’s forces from the threat of aerial bombardment and missile attack … an ambitious and exceedingly challenging effort!
 
The main invasion effort will likely be along the southern beaches due to Taiwan’s geography.  That dictates our carrier defensive location.  With aircraft only having, at best, a two hundred mile or so combat radius (remember, you have to include sufficient loiter/combat time!), our carriers will have to operate within two hundred miles or so  radius of the midpoint of the Taiwan Strait at the southern end of the strait.
 
Unfortunately, this ‘anchors’ the carrier group to a fairly fixed location.  Yes, the group would sail back and forth a bit but the necessities and constraints of aircraft range and endurance (loitering and combat time) dictate that the carrier remain in a very limited and predictable location.  A carrier constrained to a limited and predictable location is a good way to get a sunk carrier due to cruise/ballistic missiles and enemy subs.
 
The scale of air superiority action would demand all the carrier’s aircraft to operate in the air-to-air role.  There would be few, if any, available for ground support.
 
 
Surface Ship Activity
 
Aegis ships will be quite active – and one hopes successful – providing an anti-air ‘umbrella’ over the strait.  Standard SM-2/6 missiles are credited with ranges of 150-200 miles which, unfortunately, would suffice to cover, if barely, the strait from the eastern (seaward) side of Taiwan.  In conjunction with carrier aircraft, this would help establish local air superiority.
 
One should also note that the mountainous geography poses radar problems for ships operating on the eastern side of Taiwan and trying to exert anti-air influence over the strait and the western side of the island.
 
 
Submarine Activity
 
Offense – Our subs will attempt to attack Chinese naval forces at the northern and, most especially, the southern end of the Taiwan Strait.  Unfortunately, the strait is only a hundred miles wide or so which greatly restricts the submarine operations.  Only a single sub can operate at each end at a time without risking blue-on-blue engagement.  Thus, our large submarine force will be limited by geography to a minimal combat presence. 
 
Defense – As noted above, our carrier groups will be tied to a fairly fixed location and this will attract enemy subs.  Thus, one of the main functions of our submarine force will be to act as distant screens for the carrier group to intercept Chinese subs/ships approaching from around the southern tip of Taiwan or north from Philippines.  Again, though, only a relative few subs can operate in the area at a time before the crowding of subs becomes counterproductive.
 
It is obvious that the blue-on-blue concern will be a huge factor.  As described, that concern will severely limit the number of subs we can effectively employ in the fairly restricted Taiwan operating area.  We could have a thousand subs but if we can only safely and effectively employ four in the operating area, the remaining 996 are useless except as attrition replacements.  We need to begin addressing ways to safely and effectively operate more subs in the restricted area.  I cannot offer any specific thoughts on how to do that but I can and do raise the issue.  To be fair, this is an issue dating back to WWI and no one has satisfactorily solved it.
 
 
Philippines
 
The importance of the Philippines cannot be overstated.  For the Chinese, control of the Philippines provides protection for the southern invasion force.  For the US, the Philippines provides the approach from which a counterattack can be staged and launched against the southern invasion force.  The key question, therefore, is which side will seize and control Luzon and surrounding air and seas?
 
 
Amphibious Landing
 
While not an opposed landing, per se, landing troop reinforcements from the eastern side of the island would be a likely scenario.  This would require Aegis ships to move very close to shore to provide anti-air protection for amphibious ships during the landing/unloading process.
 
 
Guam
 
We can’t even begin to successfully defend Taiwan without a functional Guam so defending Guam is part of the Taiwan defense.  Guam’s defense is, however, a separate topic so I’ll leave it at that.  Just be aware of the vital role Guam will play in terms of logistics, basing, staging, repair, etc.
 
 
 
Issues
 
ASW - Chinese subs will be a major threat and we lack effective ASW.  Large, slow, non-stealthy, defenseless, fixed wing P-8 ASW aircraft will be unable to survivably operate in the area.  Helos will be unable to operate at any great distance from their host ships due to survivability concerns.  Possibly, Burke/helo hunter-killer units could be effective, however, that places a multi-billion dollar, high value, Aegis vessel squarely in the enemy submarine operating area.  We lack a dedicated, expendable (cheap) ASW ship.
 
Aircraft – We have no useful airbases near Taiwan unless Japanese bases are viable.  This would require Japan to enter the war, offer the use of their bases, and be able to defend those bases well enough to keep them effectively operating – no sure thing!  This leaves only carriers as a source of aircraft.  Unfortunately, our carrier fleet is shrinking in numbers and our air wings are half the size they once were.
 
Further, the F-18 is not a state of the art fighter and will be hard pressed to hold its own.
 
Ground Support – We will have few, if any, carrier aircraft available for ground support.  The Air Force won’t have any bases within useful distance to provide support.  We might be able to base Air Force aircraft on Taiwan bases but the likelihood of Taiwan bases remaining operational is not good.
 
This might be a scenario where big deck amphibious ships, configured for pure ground support (maximize the F-35Bs), could be effective assuming we can establish local air superiority. I assume attack helos would be non-survivable due to Chinese anti-air weapons and contested skies.
 

Conclusion
 
Why is it important to understand how a Taiwan conflict will play out?  It’s because that will determine what capabilities and, therefore, what platforms and weapons we need.  Currently, the Navy designs ships in a complete vacuum with no consideration for strategic and operational requirements (CONOPS).  We need to stop this ‘blind’ design practice and begin designing to our specific needs. 
 
Consider the Navy’s obsession with unmanned assets.  Do we need unmanned assets?  Well, it all depends on how we intend to fight a war with China.  Unmanned assets may be useful or they may not.  We don’t know because we don’t have a war plan.
 
I’m offering this brief outline of how a defense of Taiwan will play out.  You can agree or disagree with my vision but it offers a concrete set of operational requirements which, in turn, allows us to design assets that will directly and effectively support the plan instead of designing assets that we just cross our fingers and hope can somehow prove useful but we’re not sure.

Taiwan Submarines

Taiwan is attempting to build 8 new indigenously designed SSKs.  Reuters has a good article summarizing the effort.[1]

 

Shipbuilder CSBC began construction last year and is aiming to deliver the first of the planned eight vessels by 2025, according to government statements. The value of the project is estimated at up to $16 billion, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. [1]

 

Taiwan’s current submarine fleet consists of two Sea Dragon SSKs built in the Netherlands and delivered in 1987.  Typical of SSKs, they have six 533 mm bow tubes and 28 torpedoes.

 

The central rationale for acquiring new submarines appears to be the following,

 

The eight new submarines, plus the Sea Dragons, would pose a deadly threat to an invasion fleet, say veteran Western, Japanese and Taiwanese submariners. Armed with powerful torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, these vessels could attack the convoys of troop transports and warships that China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), would need for any landing on Taiwan. [1]

 

This smacks of the kind of everything-we-do-will-work-and-the-enemy-won’t-try-to-stop-us thinking that the US military routinely engages in.  Can a handful of SSKs really present a significant threat to what would be a massive invasion fleet?  Let’s analyze that premise.

 

Despite anyone’s desperate wishes, the Chinese are not going to launch an invasion fleet with no anti-submarine (ASW) protection.  Chinese ASW efforts will be extensive and will greatly diminish the effectiveness of defending SSKs unless the SSKs are determined to perform a suicidal attack that would only result in a couple of sinkings per submarine. 

 

Even without considering Chinese ASW efforts, ten SSKs have a limited capacity.  With a total of 60 torpedo tubes across ten submarines and using an initial salvo of six torpedoes per sub, two per target, this would only result in 30 targets being hit (sunk or mission kill).  This is ridiculously optimistic and assumes that every sub is available, every sub finds targets, every sub launches unhindered, and every torpedo hits but it defines the absolute upper edge of expectations.  So, the upper end of expectations is 30 hits.  The invasion fleet would consist of two or three hundred ships so this amounts to 10-15% of the invading fleet being stopped (sunk or mission killed).  That’s not insignificant but it’s hardly an invasion stopper, either.  The Chinese would gladly pay that price to seize Taiwan.  To assume further success by the submarines would be compounding the ridiculousness by assuming that, having given away their positions by firing, the Chinese would stand back, do nothing, and allow the subs to continue firing until all their torpedoes were exhausted.  Of course this won’t happen.  It is highly unlikely that any submarine would get a second attack opportunity before the defending ASW forces made a second attack impossible.

 

Now, let’s inject just a small degree of realism into the scenario.  For starters, not all ten submarines would be available and in the right location to attack an invasion fleet, not all the available submarines would achieve a firing situation due to enemy ASW activity, and not all torpedoes fired would hit their intended targets.  So, a slightly more realistic estimate would be that five subs would achieve a firing situation and half the torpedoes fired would hit a target thus giving around 7 targets hit (sunk or mission kill).  There would be no follow up attacks as the submarines would be too busy evading and dying.

This is what a serious invasion fleet would look like.

 

Not only would a few submarines always be unavailable due to maintenance, the submarines might well have other duties that prevent them from being used against an invasion fleet.  For example,

 

The two people in Taiwan with direct knowledge of the sub program said the vessels would also be deployed in the deeper waters east of the island. That would help keep open ports along Taiwan’s eastern coastline, which is furthest from China, for resupplies in a conflict. [1]

 

Thus, some number of subs would be deployed on the opposite side of Taiwan from an invasion fleet and would be unavailable to attack the fleet.

 

So, our more realistic assessment is that a fleet of ten SSKs could achieve 7 hits from an invasion fleet of two or three hundred ships.  Is this level of result sufficient to justify a $16B program?  The best way to answer this question is to pose another question: could the money be better spent on small, mobile, land based anti-ship missile launchers?  For example, the Norwegians have demonstrated that small anti-ship missiles like the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) can be launched from mobile, land based launch vehicles.  Taiwan could acquire thousands of such systems for what they plan to spend on 8 submarines.  Which would do more damage … thirty or so torpedoes or many thousands of anti-ship missiles?

 

Let’s ask some more questions:

 

Which would be more survivable?

 

Which would be easier to acquire?

 

Which would be easier to man?

 

Which would cost less to operate?

 

Which would be easier to deploy on short notice?

 

 

Unless Taiwan chooses to start a war, they are going to unavoidably take the first hit in an invasion.  That means they need widely scattered, numerous, hard to find, hard to hit weapons that will survive to strike back.  China will commence an invasion by finding and striking at the submarines and employing sufficient ASW resources as to prevent the subs from achieving viable firing situations.  In contrast, thousands of small, mobile anti-ship launchers present a capability that cannot be eliminated or even significantly reduced prior to an assault.  The SSK program represents time, resources, and money that could be much better spent on other alternatives.

 

Even if Taiwan is determined to go through with the SSK program, there are many obstacles that make project success less than a given.  Aside from the fact that this is a brand new, never before done effort from a non-existent indigenous submarine building industry (recall how the US LCS turned out when we contracted two companies that had never built a warship before?), the various technologies that make up a modern submarine must largely come from foreign companies and many of those companies and their parent countries are very reluctant to upset China.  Again, the odds of success for a small anti-ship weapon system are much greater than an indigenous SSK program.

 

Ten SSKs are an annoyance to China, not an invasion stopper.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

[1]Reuters website, “T-Day: The Battle For Taiwan”, Saito et. al., 29-Nov-2021,

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/taiwan-china-submarines/

Taiwan and Normandy

In any direct war with China (as opposed to a proxy war in, say, Africa), Taiwan will be the first objective of the Chinese.  They simply cannot allow a Western aligned country to exist that close to them, providing bases for surveillance and attack.  This is elementary war strategy (that the US has ignored multiple times to our detriment!).

 

In addition to the inevitability of a direct war, there is also the quite likely possibility that China may simply launch an assault on Taiwan outside the context of a general war – in other words, a focused campaign to reclaim Taiwan.  This should not be a surprising possibility as China has been saying exactly this for many years.  In their minds, they’re giving Taiwan time to come to their senses but China’s magnanimous patience will end at some point and China will take military action to reclaim their wayward territory.  Even the US military has recognized this likelihood and has set a ballpark time frame of the next several years, according to Adm. Philip Davidson.(1)

 

A Chinese assault on Taiwan will be most comparable to Normandy in WWII.  It will be a massive undertaking.  Taiwan has an active military of 275,000 plus a reserve of 2.8M and a paramilitary (whatever that means) of 1.9M equipped with reasonably modern weapons and systems.  For comparison, Germany had less than 50,000 troops available for the defense of Normandy.

 

Drawing on lessons from the Normandy assault, we can expect to see:

 

Speed – Whether as part of a general war or a narrowly focused Taiwan-only operation, it will be mandatory for China to accomplish its goals in a very short time frame.  In a general war, a short time frame would allow China to move on to its other objectives and free up massive forces for other operations.  Failure to do so would hamstring Chinese operations as the war progressed.  In a Taiwan-only operation, China would have to accomplish its objectives very quickly or risk the US having time to gear up and enter the conflict in support of Taiwan.  Failure to secure its objectives quickly would also open China to criticism from the world community to an even greater extent.  Thus, regardless of the scenario, China would make every effort to see the bulk of immediate objectives completed and ground forces substantially ashore within the first 24-48 hrs.

 

Scope – A Taiwan operation would require a substantial portion of China’s forces with hundreds of thousands of troops poured into the effort.  A staggeringly massive missile barrage would be required to render as many defenses inoperable as possible from the start.  The Chinese amphibious fleet would be hugely supplemented by civilian transport ships.  This would be quite doable and efficient since all Chinese merchant shipping is built with military conversion capabilities included in their design.  The West will be stunned at the amphibious resources China can bring to bear.  Air superiority operations will be truly massive and will be quickly followed by continuous air strikes and close air support.  The Chinese navy will be deployed on the eastern side of Taiwan to prevent US interference.

Normandy and Taiwan - Massive Scope

 Reinforcement –  At the invasion site, Germany had a window of only hours or a few days, at most, to make effective use of reinforcements.  As it happened, one of the major goals of the Allies was to cut off the movement of reinforcements to the Normandy area and they succeeded.  Germany was never able to effectively reinforce their defenses.  Longer term, Germany had all of Europe as well as the German homeland to assemble reinforcements and push the Allies back off of Europe but could not do it.  Of course, the Soviet front siphoned off huge numbers of troops and resources that could have otherwise been used against the Allied landing.

 

In the same vein, Taiwan has very limited reinforcements – none, for all practical purposes, since the limited geography assures that every unit will be fully committed right from the start.  Taiwan lacks any strategic depth wherein it can trade land for time to prepare counterattacks.  What they have immediately available is all they’ll ever have.  Conversely, China can draw on immense reserve forces although the aforementioned speed requirement suggests that the need for Chinese reinforcements would indicate a significant strategic, if not operational, failure by the Chinese.

 

Strategic Goals – The Allies goal was to seize ports to provide supplies for the subsequent march across Europe and they succeeded.  China’s strategic goals would be to eliminate Taiwan as a US base of operations and to conduct the assault so quickly that the US would be faced with a fait accompli that would discourage US intervention.  In essence, speed would be China’s method of interdicting US reinforcements. 

 

More broadly, the seizure of Taiwan would allow Chinese mainland based air defenses to be substantially transferred to Taiwan which would significantly expand China’s defensive perimeter and make any counter-actions or counterattacks by the US much more difficult.  Seizure of Taiwan would greatly expand China’s defensive cushion and eliminate a glaring salient that could, otherwise, be used against China.

 

If China conducts just an isolated assault rather than as part of a larger war, China will immediately announce to the world that it is an internal Chinese affair in an attempt to make the US seem like a meddling outsider on the world political stage.  By doing so, China would hope to blunt any attempt by the US to build an opposition coalition.  Quite likely, China would quickly offer to negotiate a final settlement which, of course, would never produce any result and would just serve to further erode any US justification for intervention while ensuring China’s continued occupation of Taiwan.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The key consideration is the size of Taiwan’s defensive force versus the speed with which China could secure the island.  The defensive force is, potentially, much greater than was available to the German’s at Normandy but the question is whether that defensive force could retain its combat effectiveness after the initial deluge of missiles, bombs, and shells.  Without question, the fixed defensive assets such as airfields, missile sites, AAW sites, etc. would be largely destroyed in the initial bombardment.  Armored forces and artillery would also, presumably, suffer significant initial losses.  Whether the remaining troops and mobile or protected assets would retain enough coherent command and control, mobility, and firepower to provide an effective, coordinated defensive force is an open question.  Unfortunately, the result of the initial bombardment will be to reduce Taiwan’s forces toward the light infantry end of the spectrum and they would be left to fight heavily armored forces supported by air power and artillery.  There is no doubt about the final outcome but there is a great deal of doubt about the speed with which China could achieve its goals.  If Taiwan could delay the ultimate outcome long enough, China will have failed, strategically, as noted above which opens the possibility of US intervention.

 

In short, the Allies at Normandy were able to push supplies and troops ashore faster than Germany could reinforce their defenses.  Whether China can push forces ashore faster than Taiwan can relocate and reinforce its defenses is an open question as is whether Taiwan’s forces can muster sufficient firepower to be effective.

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________

 

(1)Washington Examiner website, “Pacific Commander Warns China Could Move To Take Taiwan In The Next Five Years If US Doesn’t Increase Deterrence”, Jamie McIntyre, 5-Mar-2021,

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pacific-commander-warns-china-could-move-to-take-taiwan-in-the-next-five-years-if-us-doesnt-increase-deterrence

The Taiwan Opportunity

What do we need to counter China?  Well, lots of things but one of the major things is allies – not just any allies but, ideally, militarily and economically strong allies.  We need the kind of allies that will give China pause and make them reconsider their unbridled expansionist policies.

Japan is one such ally.  They have a strong military and robust economy.  With their strength and their proximity to China, they are a significant impediment for China.  India could be another ally if we can build better relations with them.  South Korea might be a qualified ally although their willingness to side with the US outside of the North Korean threat is suspect.

Yet another potentially strong ally is Taiwan.  They have a small, though competent, military and a reasonably strong economy.  What they lack on the military side of things is access to the latest US technology and support.

US support for Taiwan has always been a hesitant proposition, at best.  Successive US governments have refrained from demonstrating outright support and recognition in an attempt to curry favor (or at least prevent worsening relations) with China.  Well, that ship has sailed.  China has placed itself on a direct collision course with the US by flaunting international laws and treaties, conducting an expansionist territorial grab of the entire East and South China Seas and beyond, routinely trespassing into the territorial waters of neighboring countries, engaging in massive intellectual property theft, engaging in blatant currency manipulation, seizing US military assets, conducting cyber espionage, etc.  There is no need to placate China because there is no longer anything to be gained by doing so, if there ever was.

Just as the termination of the INF treaty with Russia has freed the US to pursue intermediate range ballistic missiles (as China has been doing for many years), so too does China’s now public and clearly acknowledged anti-US stance free us to pursue geopolitical strategies that were formerly off limits due to our naïve and forlorn hopes for peaceful accommodation.  Strengthening our relations with Taiwan is now a viable (it always was – we were just too timid to pursue it) course of action.

Consider what a greatly militarily strengthened Taiwan could do in containing China. 

Given the physical proximity of Taiwan to China, China would have no choice but to refocus a significant portion of their political and military resources away from expansion and towards containment and countering the threat of Taiwan.  This refocus would allow us the opportunity to push back against China’s recent expansions and incursions while China is otherwise occupied closer to home.

A militarily stronger Taiwan complicates China’s war plans by forcing them to allocate more resources to Taiwan which absolutely must by the first Chinese move in any war.

I know there are many ‘Chicken Little’ Chinese observers who are terrified that any strengthening of Taiwan by the US would instantly lead to total nuclear war but that’s simply fear-inspired garbage reasoning.  China has as much or more to fear and lose from a war with a Taiwan-US partnership (with, likely, Japan and others joining in against China) than we do.  China can bluster all they want but the reality of their military and economic position is that there’s not really anything they can do about it.  China has zero chance to win a war against the US (at the moment) let alone an alliance of the US, Taiwan, Japan, and others. 

Taiwan also provides a very strong counter to, and penetration of, China’s territorial claims.  Taiwan’s territorial claims and their associated Economic Exclusion Zone (defined as 200 miles by the UNCLOS treaty of which China is a signatory) provide the prefect legal justification for a Taiwan-US partnership to push back with military force, if needed, against China’s illegal expansionist activities.

Again, there are the same ‘Chicken Little’ fear mongers who believe that if we even strongly protest an illegal Chinese action we’ll instantly spark a nuclear war.  The reality is that China is using their military (their Coast Guard and fishing fleets are thinly disguised extensions of their military) to intimidate neighboring countries as they seek to execute de facto seizures of territory.  There is no reason we shouldn’t use our military to equally aggressively push back against these territorial seizures and partnering with Taiwan provides the necessary legal and international standing to do so by ‘assisting’ Taiwan at their behest.

So, how, specifically, should we support and strengthen Taiwan?

The answer is military subsidies.  Let’s outright give Taiwan ships, aircraft, weapons, equipment and logistical support.  It’s easily justified as an investment in our own security.  All Taiwan has to supply is the manpower to operate the equipment. 

Where would all this equipment come from?  Well, for one thing, it would help if we would stop SinkEx’ing our perfectly good ships.  Imagine what dozens of Spruances could do for Taiwan’s naval power.  We early retired the Tarawa class, if those would be of use to Taiwan.  Let’s give them F-35s and make China account for stealth aircraft right in their own backyard.  Supposedly, we’ve got thousands of M1 Abrams sitting in parking lots.  Why not give them good homes in Taiwan?  The LCS is of no use to us.  Let’s give them the entire LCS fleet.  The range, endurance, and maintenance problems that make them nearly useless to us would be greatly mitigated by operating in Taiwan’s home waters where those factors are not significant drawbacks.

Hey, if we can get some partial payments for the equipment, so much the better but let’s keep firmly in mind that the equipment transfers are for our benefit – payment is not required.  If it helps, think of these ships and aircraft as unmanned (by Americans) vehicles.

Right now, China is focused well outside the East and South China Seas - well beyond the first island chain to Africa, the Middle East, South America, etc.  Why not give China some serious problems to deal with right in their own backyard?  Let’s blur their global focus and make them refocus on their own backyard.  That can only help slow their global activities and give us opportunities to strengthen our own global positions.

In addition to providing equipment and support, let’s start conducting ‘port visits’ to Taiwan with occasional ships and aircraft and then, over time, with more and more ships and aircraft with longer and longer stays until, eventually, we’ve established a de facto permanent presence and base.  Does this kind of slow, incremental, creeping, reach sound familiar?  It should.  It’s the Chinese playbook!  Why shouldn’t we use it for ourselves?

Taiwan is an opportunity waiting to be grasped and all we need to do is demonstrate some fortitude to make it happen.

Of course, all of this depends on Taiwan being willing to cooperate and the key to that is demonstrating that such a course is in their own best interests as well as ours.

The First Battle

The Navy has announced its intention to construct a multi-tiered fleet of unmanned vessels to supplement and, to a significant degree, replace the Burke class destroyers.  Incredibly, this has occurred with no substantive validation of the concept.  This is very reminiscent of the commitment to an entire fleet of LCSes without a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and before the first was even designed.  With that in mind, let’s examine how the Navy’s vision of future naval combat might play out.

As always (and always ignored by readers!), this is NOT intended as a complete and realistic combat simulation.  It is an ILLUSTRATION of various concepts in a more entertaining format.

The First Battle

The #8 MDUSV (Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel) controller nodded slightly in satisfaction as he surveyed the picture and sonar display on his console.  The situation was shaping up nicely.  The MDUSV anti-submarine and surveillance screen of 14 vessels plus the two specially modified EA-18G Growler communications relay aircraft were arrayed to the sides and front of the carrier and its two Burke escorts (the last Ticonderogas had recently been early retired by the Navy to free up funding for the unmanned fleet) plus the four LDUSV (Large Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessels) arsenal ships and he and his fellow controllers aboard the USV control ship were receiving a steady flow of sonar, radar, and EO/IR data which, so far, had proven more than sufficient to detect and ward off the occasional probe by the Chinese as the group made its approach to Taiwan. 

Two Chinese patrol boats and a few ‘fishing’ vessels had been easily detected and dispatched with Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) from the LDUSVs.  A few Chinese long range patrol aircraft had also been driven off and one, that had approached just a bit too closely, had been shot down by a Standard missile launched from a LDUSV and controlled by a Burke.

Indeed, it appeared that the Navy’s vision of a multi-tiered unmanned fleet paired with just a few high end Burkes was paying dividends.  The Navy had gone all-in on the tiered, unmanned fleet concept and replaced (allowed to retire without direct replacement) many Burkes with combinations of unmanned vessels.  While many naval analysts had been uneasy about reducing the number of Burkes in favor of the smaller, more distributed, unmanned vessels, the argument for the unmanned vessels – mainly budget related - had prevailed.  The individual unmanned vessels were far less capable than a Burke or even a frigate but in the aggregate the unmanned vessels offered more capability, better distribution of risk, and more complication for the enemy …  at least, that was the theory.  Unbelievably, the Navy had never bothered to test the concept before wholeheartedly committing to the new fleet structure.  The concept was being put to the test now, though, in real combat.

The carrier group’s approach to Taiwan hadn’t been completely one-sided, though.  A pair of F-35s had ventured a bit too far forward and been ambushed by four Chinese J-20 stealth fighters resulting in one F-35 shot down and the other damaged but able to recover back on the carrier.

Predictably, the war had begun with an all-out Chinese assault on Taiwan and Chinese forces now occupied most of the militarily significant sites on the island.  Chinese aircraft were now operating out of hastily repaired airbases and Chinese naval forces were screening the eastern side of the island from the expected American counterattack.

The carrier group had been tasked with sweeping the seas on the eastern side of the island and taking station there to establish local air superiority for the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) amphibious assault force that was following a day behind.  The United States had chosen to stand with Taiwan and this was the first response and first battle between China and the US.

Following the newly established amphibious assault doctrine, the MEU would be sent ashore at various points along the Taiwanese coast to establish sea control which would allow the unhindered landing of the main, follow on Marine and Army forces – again, an untested and unvalidated concept.  First, though, the carrier had to do its job and set the stage.

As the MDUSV controller settled back in his chair with a satisfied shifting of his weight – you had to learn how to meld with these chairs because they weren’t designed for comfort! – the thought crossed his mind that it was a bit surprising that there had been no submarine contacts yet.  He’d have bet that the Chinese wouldn’t allow the carrier group to approach without challenge and the Chinese had a pretty impressive collection of both nuclear and conventional submarines.  Still, he wasn’t going to complain and, likely enough, the subs would show up eventually and when they did, the MDUSVs and their controllers would be waiting.

At the same moment the USV controller settled back, an airborne controller aboard an E-2 Hawkeye leaned forward, peering intently at his screen.  He had just noticed several faint, intermittent contacts, far beyond the MDUSV ASW screen.  After a few more minutes observation the contacts began to solidify and the controller made the call.  Small, high subsonic, wave skimming contacts – small anti-ship missiles, undoubtedly - were approaching the MDUSV screen vessels. 

What the controller didn’t know was that the Chinese had long ago detected the communications activity between the MDUSVs, their communications relay aircraft, and the control ships and pretty much pinpointed the USV locations – certainly well enough to launch anti-ship missiles with active seeker heads.  Line of sight (LOS) communications were not as secure as the US Navy believed.  With its vast sensor laden ‘fishing’ fleet and a host of various other air and land based sensors all peering intently at the eastern sea off Taiwan, it had not been difficult to pin down the exact location of each MDUSV.  While short burst LOS transmissions were very difficult to detect, the continuous, high volume, high bandwidth transmissions required to transmit sonar, radar, and EO/IR data in real time offered plenty of opportunity for the sophisticated, computer aided Chinese sensors to detect and localize the MDUSV communications.  No single Chinese sensor could directly and completely ‘see’ any individual LOS comm link, however, the plethora of sensors managed to pull together enough bits and pieces to assemble an accurate picture of the communications nodes which were the MDUSVs, the relay aircraft, and the USV control ships.  It was somewhat analogous to the multistatic sonar detection techniques employed in ASW.

With so little warning and with the MDUSVs so far out in front of the Burkes and LDUSV arsenal ships, there was no time to engage the incoming missiles.  The MDUSVs would have to face the missiles on their own.  Unfortunately, the MDUSVs had no defensive weapons nor even any electronic countermeasures.  It had been determined, correctly, that the minimal defensive weapons that a MDUSV could mount would provide no effective defense and would only drive up the cost of the vessels thereby making them less expendable.

The Chinese anti-ship missiles rapidly closed on the helpless MDUSVs.  With four missiles allocated to each MDUSV there was little the MDUSV controllers could do but to try to turn their vessels head on to the incoming missiles in an attempt to minimize their radar profile and break lock.  Unfortunately, the MDUSVs were not very maneuverable and their box-like superstructures were decidedly not stealthy and all the vessels were hit.  Of the 14 screening vessels, 8 were blown to pieces and sunk outright, 3 were severely damaged and mission killed, and 1 was damaged but, miraculously, still afloat and functional.

As this took place, a waiting ring of Chinese subs noted the time and, as planned, surged forward at high speed towards the carrier and the remaining escorts.  The carrier’s location had been extrapolated from the MDUSV locations and knowledge of US Navy tactics.  In other words, if you knew the location of the USVs, you could pretty accurately surmise the location of the carrier. 

In addition, the Chinese had, for years, been laying their equivalent of a SOSUS seabed listening array throughout the South and East China Seas and the arrays had no great problem picking up the noise of an approaching carrier.

With the MDUSVs out of action the ASW responsibility fell on the two Burke escorts, alone.  The LDUSV arsenal ships, of course, had no ASW capability.  Unfortunately, the Burkes only rarely trained for ASW operations and, even then, only in highly scripted exercises that served no purpose other than checking a training box on a list.  The situation had gotten even worse with the advent of the MDUSVs which had been given the responsibility for ASW.  AAW was the training priority for Burkes, not ASW. 

Now, though, there was no choice.  The Burkes, warned by the sudden acoustic ‘appearance’ of the surging Chinese subs at multiple points around the compass, attempted to localize and engage the subs.  However, the Chinese subs, using a variation of the tried and true US Navy tactic of sprint and drift, were able to close on the Burkes and the carrier with impunity.  No sooner would a Burke begin to localize a loud, sprinting sub then it would cease its cease its high speed run and another sub would ‘pop up’.  Being completely inexperienced and largely untrained in submarine and ASW tactics, the Burkes were ineffective to the point of helplessness.  The Burke’s helos were frantically directed and redirected from one transient contact to another with no time to properly find and fix any sub’s location.

In relatively short order, the submarines began reaching optimum attack points and spreads of torpedoes were launched from, essentially, point blank range.  The outcome was inevitable.  The carrier was hit by at least seven torpedoes and its fate was sealed.  The first battle of the Chinese War would end in disaster for the US fleet.

__________________________________

Here are some issues/questions from the story:

Does it make sense to place defenseless unmanned vessels far out in front of a battle group where they cannot be supported?

Does it make sense to assign a vital function, like ASW, to defenseless unmanned vessels far out in front of a battle group where the entire function (ASW) can be eliminated in a moment, due to lack of support?

Are we so sure that our communications will be undetectable?

If MDUSVs are going to be our front line of ASW, what asset will do the actual attack since the MDUSV has no helo or weapons?

The MDUSV ASW sensor is fairly short range, being limited in power and size.  Is it wise to depend on only short range ASW sensing, given the long range of submarine weapons?  Are we wise to continue to ignore the long range ASW role that the S-3 Viking filled?

Is it wise to replace Burkes with small, individually weak, unmanned vessels?  Yes, this is the Navy’s stated plan.

__________________________________

As a brief refresher, here are some basic specs for the Navy’s multi-tiered, unmanned vessels.

MDUSV

40-130 ft long

Function: ISR / unmanned scouts
Networked to each other and the main group

 LDUSV

300 ft, 2000 tons
Function: Arsenal barge
Networked and fire-controlled by Burke/F-35

___________________________________

For those interested, here is a good general background article:

(1)The Drive / War Zone website, “Navy’s Budget Requests Two Huge Missile-Laden Drone Ships That Displace 2000 Tons”, Joseph Trevithick, 12-Mar-2019,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26915/navys-budget-requests-two-huge-missile-laden-drone-ships-that-displace-2000-tons