The U.S. - China Naval Rivalry And The Impact Of Drones

Pilotless Planes, Pacific Tensions -- Richard Aprker, New York Times

THIS week the Navy will launch an entirely autonomous combat drone — without a pilot on a joystick anywhere — off the deck of an aircraft carrier, the George H. W. Bush. The drone will then try to land aboard the same ship, a feat only a relatively few human pilots in the world can accomplish.

This exercise is the beginning of a new chapter in military history: autonomous drone warfare. But it is also an ominous turn in a potentially dangerous military rivalry now building between the United States and China.

The X-47B, a stealth plane nicknamed “the Robot” by Navy crews, is a big bird — 38 feet long, with a 62-foot wingspan — that flies at high subsonic speeds with a range of over 2,000 miles. But it is the technology inside the Robot that makes it a game-changer in East Asia. Its entirely computerized takeoff, flight and landing raise the possibility of dozens or hundreds of its successors engaged in combat at once.

Read more ....

My Comment: The author focuses more on U.S. strategy and developments .... but it is really Chinese strategy and developments that are altering the status quo in Asia. The Chinese have made it very clear that their goal is to be dominant Asian military power ASAP .... and U.S. deployment of a few drones and a few ships is not going to change their program.

Are Surface Combat Fleets Obsolete?

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan travels through the Pacific Ocean with other ships assigned to the Rim of the Pacific 2010 exercise, north of Hawaii, July 24, 2010. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Dylan McCord

Surface Combat Fleets: Obsolete? -- James R. Holmes, The Diplomat

America is developing its own carrier killer. Defense Industry Daily reports that the U.S. Navy has budgeted some $198 million through 2017 to fund a sorely needed replacement for its swiftly aging RGM-84 Harpoon antiship cruise missile. The workhorse Harpoon is rapidly being overtaken by rivals such as the Indian Navy's supersonic BrahMos, which outranges the American bird by a wide margin. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency started developing a subsonic and a supersonic variant of a long-range antiship cruise missile, or LRASM, in 2009. It subsequently dropped the supersonic LRASM-B while pressing ahead with the subsonic LRASM-A. Testing will commence this year. Assuming all goes well, the navy may soon accept ownership of — and begin funding — the missile's development, manufacture, and deployment in fleet warships.

Read more ....

My Comment: Technology is definitely changing the naval battlefield .... but the end of surface combat fleets .... that is a concept that is hard to accept.

Is The Aircraft Carrier Becoming Obsolete?

Six amphibious ships and five carriers moored in Norfolk.

NORFOLK (Dec. 20, 2012) The aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) are in port at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., the world’s largest naval station. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ernest R. Scott/Released)

Is The End Of The Aircraft Carrer Nigh? The Rapid Decline Of The 'Carrier Navies' -- Thin Pinstriped Line

In a further sign that budgets across the globe are beginning to bite, news reports in recent weeks have once again highlighted the challenges associated with operating a modern fleet of aircraft carriers. The challenging global economic situation shows few signs of lessening, and across the world there are reports of further cuts in equipment, hulls and operations.

In Spain for instance the veteran carrier Principe De Asturias (PDA) has finally been paid off after some 25 years service as part of budget cuts. It is perhaps ironic to consider that she was originally conceived in the early 1980s as a cheap ‘Sea Control Ship’ solution originally looked at by the US Navy to provide cheaper carriers. Intended to put ASW helicopters to sea as a replacement for the Delado, she represented the closest any nation has perhaps come to a truly ‘austere’ carrier, with minimal support facilities for the airwing. Optimised in the first for ASW, with a very limited fixed wing capability using the Harrier (although never to the same level of development as the UK with the mixed FA2 / GR7 airwing), the PDA was an example in the 1980s of how smaller ‘harrier carriers’ could be built for emerging middle tier navies, providing them with airpower at relatively small cost. In reality she remained the sole of her class built around the world , with the closest other example being a Thai vessel optimised for EEZ protection and to act as a Royal Yacht.

Read more ....

My Comment: A sobering analysis. Read it all.

Deployment Of The F-35 Will Not Solve The U.S. Navy's Carrier Shortage

F-35 test aircraft are seen at Naval Air Station Patuxent Aircraft, Md. Lockheed Martin

Solving The Navy’s Carrier Shortage -- Adm. James A. Lyons, Washington Times

F-35 fifth-generation aircraft could provide needed support.

The U.S. Navy, operating with too few carriers, now has a forward-deployment dilemma. Keeping two carriers deployed to the Middle East with only nine deployable strike carriers is not sustainable, even with their deployment time increasing by 50 percent. This is having debilitating consequences for fleet readiness. An immediate relaxation from the two-carrier commitment would provide much-needed forward deployment flexibility. This can be accomplished by utilizing operational alternatives, including modified U.S. Air Force Air Expeditionary Forces, along with U.S. Marine Corps Air Wing, to provide the required close air support mission in Afghanistan.

With the four-year overhaul of the USS Abraham Lincoln, combined with the delay of the USS Gerald Ford, the Navy will still require additional deployment flexibility. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 fifth-generation aircraft could possibly provide such flexibility.

Read more ....

My Comment: Adm. James A. Lyons argument makes sense if you choose to ignore this.

U.S. Navy Officers Face Tough New Rules

Commanding any of the Navy's fleet of nearly 300 ships is the most challenging assignment the sea service has to offer. Navy photo / MCS 1st Class Hana'lei Shimana

No More Bad Commanding Officers? -- Darlene M Iskra, Time

The headline in the June 18 Navy Times that arrived in my mailbox screamed NO MORE BULLIES, DRUNKS, & PLAYBOYS. It went on to detail Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert’s “tough new rules” for screening for command.

In addition to mandatory attendance at the two-week Command Leadership School, the screening includes passing a written test, sitting through an oral board, and receiving an informal evaluation (360-degree assessment) from peers and subordinates. The command qualification and screening will be required of all new command officers (COs), both ashore and at sea, by June 4, 2013.

Read more ....

My Comment: I guess they have to start somewhere in weeding out the rotten apples.

Are Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete?

The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, bottom, and the guided missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill, top, conduct a replenishment at sea with the Military Sealift Command fast combat support ship USNS Bridge in the Arabian Gulf, March 6, 2012. The Carl Vinson and Carrier Air Wing 17 are deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class James R. Evans

Shipping Out: Are Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete? -- Robert Haddick, Foreign Policy

For decades, aircraft carriers have been the tool-of-choice for crisis response. Policymakers in Washington and four-star commanders in the field invariably have turned to carriers when they needed to signal U.S. intentions, quickly reinforce military power, or provide decision-makers with options during a predicament. The Navy has responded to the enduring demands of these customers by making the aircraft carrier strike group the prime organizing feature of the Navy's surface and aviation forces, thereby drawing the biggest share of the service's manpower, budget, support, and training resources. And until recently, the Air Force seemed happy to cede this crisis-response role, because then it could focus on its own priorities.

Read more ....

My Comment: Advances in missile technology and drones will probably change the dynamics and importance of aircraft carriers during times of conflict .... but as a projection of power in a non-war environment, nothing beats the appearance of an aircraft carrier in the horizon.

The U.S. Navy Needs More Ships

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan travels through the Pacific Ocean with other ships assigned to the Rim of the Pacific 2010 exercise, north of Hawaii, July 24, 2010. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Dylan McCord

U.S. Navy’s Quantity Problem -- James R. Holmes, The Diplomat

As naval technology gallops on, can fleets execute the same missions with fewer assets?

Eminent people say so; I have my doubts.

Officials like U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Undersecretary of the Navy Robert Work point to scientific and technical advances that supposedly render numbers of ships and aircraft less meaningful than in bygone decades. Unmanned reconnaissance aircraft able to detect, classify, and track hostile contacts across wide sea areas and feed targeting information to U.S. Navy task forces represent one such innovation. Sea-service leaders also point out that warships now entering service are far more technologically advanced than the ones they replace.

The message, seemingly, is that quantity no longer has much quality of its own.

Read more ....

My Comment: I remember the days when President Reagan talked about the need to have a 600 ship Navy in projecting US power overseas .... sighhh .... for the U.S. Navy those days are long long long gone.

Why We Need U.S. Naval Power

USS Kearsarge

Fighting From The Sea -- James Carafano, Washington Examiner

Gen. MacArthur had them on the run.

The dramatic "end-run" amphibious landing at Inchon had turned the tide in the Korean conflict. In October 1950, he planned to catch the retreating North Korean forces with another amphibious assault at Wonsan. But this time, the surprise was on MacArthur. The enemy had fled before his men could land.

Wonsan, however, was still historic. It was the last major combat amphibious assault attempted by the U.S.

Sixty years on, in a May 2010 speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates questioned whether it would ever be "sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again." The Marine Corps, naturally, was apoplectic, since attacks from the sea are considered its core competency. It seemed as though their boss was publicly questioning their purpose.

Read more ....

My Comment: The Wall Street Journal further examines the need for U.S. naval power.

Using The U.S. Navy For Humanitarian Operations (A Commentary)

A Great White Fleet for the 21st Century -- James B. Brinton, American Spectator

The size of the Japanese disaster makes relief efforts look woefully puny; humanity needs more powerful tools to deliver aid. More quakes will come, some larger, and most nations will need far more help than well-prepared Japan.

Since most of the world's population lives near the shoreline, bringing the required level of aid to bear is properly a naval mission. Already two U.S. Navy landing ships and a command ship are on scene in Japan, and about a dozen more Navy ships are arrive day by day. The 40,000-ton assault ships are suited to disaster relief with their flight decks and amphibious capabilities -- not to mention their Marine Corps complements.

Read more ....

My Comment: These are the best ships for humanitarian purposes.

An Argument For Having "Big Ships" In The Navy

The USS George Washington in Busan on July 27. The Pentagon said Thursday the carrier will be in a joint drill in the Yellow Sea. By Song Bong-geun

Japan Leadership Crisis Underscores Importance of Big Ships -- War Is Boring

A domestic political crisis in Japan in May and June nearly shattered the U.S. military’s delicate basing infrastructure in the Pacific — and underscored the enduring need for a robust U.S. Nay aircraft carrier and assault-ship force. The controversy in Japan over the U.S. Marine Corps air station in the town of Futenma came at time when U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was publicly questioning the Navy’s plans to maintain 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and 10 large-deck assault ships through at least 2040.

Read more ....

My Comment: We are living in the age of accurate and lethal missiles .... so the idea of providing a large and tempting target such as an aircraft carrier may not be the preferred way to go. But politics is what usually determines the direction that a military must go, and in this case it is Japanese politics that is influencing U.S. decisions on what naval assets must be placed in the Pacific.

Observing "How The US Lost The Naval War Of 2015"

USS George Washington CVN-73

From Information Dissemination:

Americans woke up to a different world the day after the attack. The war was over almost as soon as it had started. Outmaneuvered tactically and strategically, the United States suffered its greatest defeat at sea since Pearl Harbor. The incident—could it really be called a "war"?—had been preceded by a shallow diplomatic crisis between the two great powers. No one in the West expected the dispute to spiral out of control. George Washington was conducting routine patrols off the coast of China to send a signal of U.S. resolve. China responded with a signal of its own—sinking the massive ship. The ship broke in two and sank in twenty minutes. The Chinese medium-range ballistic missile had a penetrator warhead that drilled through all fourteen decks of the ship and punched a cavernous hole measuring twenty-feet wide from the flat-top landing deck through to the bottom of the hull. Ammunition stores ignited secondary explosions. Two million gallons of JP-5 jet fuel poured into the sea. The attack was calamitous and damage control was pointless.

Read more ....

My Comment: I always love reading these "what if" stories.

I doubt that the U.S. would knuckle under an unprovoked Chinese attack against a U.S. carrier .... economic sanctions, financial retaliation, targeted attacks .... this .... and more .... would be the U.S. response. The other Asian powers .... from India to Japan .... would also immediately band together to not only voice their opposition to any Chinese aggression of this magnitude, but to join together politically and militarily to counter such an action. For the Chinese .... in the end .... it will be a lose-lose situation.

But the scenario does bring up some questions that need answers .... for example, are our aircraft carriers safe .... or are they that vulnerable to one missile attack. Are submarines the answer? Are smaller vessels more viable and acceptable in today's world? Should we focus our attention on other platforms?

Bloggers have been on the forefront in this discussion .... and I am sure that they will continue providing us the analysis and the discussion that is needed on this topic.

Fallout From The “Battleship Only” Navy -- A Commentary

From New Wars:

Who’s fault is this? From Ares blog:

Today’s Navy is not large enough to meet demands from the theater, he says to no one’s surprise. “We are not everywhere we need to be,” (Vice Adm. Barry McCullough) notes. “There’s a deficit for naval forces globally.”

But here’s where he really gets my attention: “There isn’t enough money in the topline budget to meet the Maritime Strategy.”

That would be the national Maritime Strategy. Wow. We’ve known for a while that the 313-ship plan accepted increased risk already, whether it’s submarines or aircraft carriers. But when we’re already admitting that the armed services can’t meet a practically new national maritime strategy, then we may be deeper in trouble than we know. I mean, it’s not like it gets any easier or cheaper to build up the fleet in the future.

Read more ....