Navy League jumps into debate over fleet size
March 20th, 2012 | Budget China Congress Navy Navy secretary Ships The Pacific | Posted by Charles Hoskinson
The Navy League of the United States has jumped into the fleet size debate, saying in its annual Maritime Policy Statement that a minimum of 305 ships are needed “to continue to deliver disaster aid and humanitarian assistance, deter aggression, maintain freedom of the seas and, if necessary, win wars. These are the capabilities upon which the global community has come to depend.”
The statement puts the group at odds with Navy leaders, who have proposed a five-year budget plan that includes early retirements of seven Ticonderoga-class cruisers and two amphibious ships, along with shipbuilding delays that will bring the fleet down below the current level of 282 ships. The cuts are part of the Defense Department’s plan to shrink its budget by $259 billion through fiscal year 2017, as mandated by law.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the Navy would “again cross the threshold of 300 ships” by 2019 under the service’s budget plans.
Republicans in Congress oppose shrinking the size of the fleet, saying it’s inconsistent with the focus on Asia in the Obama administration’s new national security strategy. Navy League Executive Director Dale Lumme echoed that concern, saying: “In light of the new national defense strategy’s emphasis on the Asia-Pacific and continued presence in the Middle East, the need for maritime forces that are forward deployed, forward engaged and ever-ready to respond is more critical now than ever before.”
Living la dolce vita on a former Soviet carrier
January 16th, 2012 | Carriers China Historical Photos Soviet Union | Posted by Bill McMichael
There’s something utterly incongruous about the setup, but a Chinese company is opening a luxury hotel on board a retired Kiev-class Soviet aircraft carrier.
That’s right. One of these:
Has bedrooms like these:
One of the hotel's three presidential suites, the largest of which is 400 square meters. // Photo courtesy Binhai Aircraft.
And lounges like these:
The lounge of another presidential suite. // Photo courtesy Binhai Aircraft.
Crazy, no? The country that starved or killed millions in the name of communist purity and military dominance collapses, sells a carrier (in 1996) to a company in China (a former enemy) that, in 2004, turns the carrier into a tourist attraction — a military theme park that features a hotel aimed at a “high-end clientele.”
This is begging for a Hollywood script.
The company developed the hotel concept in response to requests from visitors hoping to spend the night in a former officer’s or sailor’s room. There are 148 rooms, still being finished, in addition to three lavish presidential suites that look like something out of a Las Vegas penthouse.
So, no guests yet — it’s slated to open sometime this year. But visitors can now, by appointment, dine in “the world’s first Western restaurant on an aircraft carrier.”
The Kiev hotel's 30-seat restaurant. Dig that color scheme!// Photo courtesy of Binhai Aircraft.
Don’t go expecting French or Italian cuisine, however. It’s Russian food.
Here’s the story, courtesy of CNN International.
“Know Your AOR” edition: Spratlys
July 22nd, 2011 | China Diplomacy Geography Navy The Pacific The Philippines | Posted by Gidget Fuentes
You may have caught it in passing on a news ticker or blog, but have no clue what or where on Earth are the Spratly islands. But you hear they are contested islands some defense experts think potentially could spark the start of a regional war.
The archipelago is comprised of small atolls, reefs, islets and outcroppings in the South China Sea, west of the Philippines and spread across a large area but claimed by the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Taiwan and Malaysia. The islands, which range in size from small to tiny, are in a prime fishing region and sit atop what’s believed to be vast reserves of oil and natural gas. It’s no surprise numerous disputes flare up between nations that stake claim on the islands and nearby waters, a well-trafficked route for commercial ships and military vessels.
“The worry, among others that I have, is that the ongoing incidents could spark a miscalculation, and an outbreak that no one anticipated,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters in Beijing during his China visit earlier this month. The Spratlys were among the hot topics at a regional security conference in Bali just this week.
But that political and diplomatic hubbub is pretty much lost on residents of the remote tropical islands. Their biggest worry? Boredom. So says this Associated Press report from a recent – and controversial – July 20 visit by some Filipino lawmakers to Pagasa, one of the islands: “The only sounds are the waves slapping the shore and the wind whistling in the ears. At high noon, fighting off sleep is a struggle.”
Nonexistent crime tests the Filipino police officers on the island, which covers just 91 acres. “One big problem really is how to kill time,” said one town mayor. “After fishing, walking around, playing billiards and cards, what else can one do next?”
Something to think about during those long days at sea.
A not-quite arms race, cont.
January 11th, 2011 | Aviation China Navy | Posted by David Larter
The new J-20 stealth fighter, which experts say is comprable to the F-22, shown here in a test flight. // Sina.com
Navy Times sister publication Defense News is reporting that the Chinese have tested their new J-20 stealth fighter, coinciding with Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit with the Chinese president.
The New York Times reported that the test took place just hours before the visit and that Gates asked President Hu Jintao about the timing. Hu said the test had nothing to do with Gates. The Times article infers there may be some disconnect between the Chinese government and the test, implying that perhaps Hu had not authorized the test.
Mr. Gates said he directly asked Mr. Hu why it was conducted during a three-day trip that is meant to smooth over rocky relations between the United States military and China’s increasingly assertive armed forces.
Mr. Hu replied, Mr. Gates said, that it “had absolutely nothing to do with my visit.” Asked if Mr. Gates truly believed that, Mr. Gates said yes, but acknowledged he had questions about whether the Chinese military was acting independently of the political leadership. “I’ve had concerns about this over time,” Mr. Gates said.
A senior American defense official traveling with Mr. Gates said the secretary and his aides were surprised that Mr. Hu appeared to be unaware of the test flight when Mr. Gates raised it with him.
Still, it’s not an arms race.
The Chinese military acting independently of its political leadership would be cause for a degree of alarm in the 7th Fleet, although testing a fighter jet is hardly a reason to set General Quarters. Still, it’s something to keep an eye on.
A not-quite arms race with China
January 10th, 2011 | Aviation China Navy Video | Posted by David Larter
The F-35C Lightning II joint strike fighter won't be the only new stealth fighter flying soon. The Chinese J-20 is getting close to operational. // Lockheed Martin
Apparently China’s super death ray carrier-sinking missile is still on Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ radar as he travels to China this week. Gates told The Telegraph that he had been concerned about the development of anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles since he took the job in 2006, and remained so. The trip was designed to ease tensions between the two powers, but so far it seems to have highlighted the jitters China’s recent military advancements have given the U.S.
The AP reports:
China has made strides in building a new stealth fighter jet, and Washington is also concerned about a new ballistic missile that could theoretically explode a U.S. aircraft carrier nearly 2,000 miles out to sea. China has also apparently beaten U.S. estimates to develop that weapon.
Gates told reporters traveling with him to Asia on Sunday that China had the potential to “put some of our capabilities at risk.”
“We have to pay attention to them. We have to respond appropriately with our own programs,” Gates said.
Hmm, responding to Chinese programs with programs. It couldn’t be another arms race, could it?
At their news conference Monday, Gates and [Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie] denied their governments are entering an arms race. Liang, dressed in his military uniform, animatedly defended China’s growing capabilities, calling them “entirely appropriate and consistent with China’s rise as an economic and political power.”
Well, that’s settled.
In regards to China’s J-20, Gates said that U.S. intel had dropped the ball on just how far along the Chinese were with the project.
“I think that what we’ve seen is that they may be somewhat further ahead in the development of that aircraft than our intelligence had earlier predicted,” Gates said.
This after cell phone video of the aircraft hit the Internet last week. Observe:
Message not received
November 23rd, 2010 | Carriers China Navy North Korea The Pacific Washington | Posted by David Larter
An F/A 18E Super Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-27 takes off from the flight deck of USS George Washington as the destroyer Stethem steams alongside during flight quarters. // MC3 Devon Dow
Remember all those exercises South Korea held with the U.S. a few months ago to send a message to its pugnacious northern neighbor? You know, the ones that had the carrier George Washington steaming with the South Korean navy? The exercises that drove U.S.-Chinese relations to a low-point earlier this year? Well Kim Jong-Il didn’t pick up the phone, apparently.
This morning, the news broke that North Korea opened a barrage of artillery fire on South Korean troops, killing at least two people.
The question must be asked: How do the U.S. and South Korea abide this? The U.S. pulled out the biggest gun it had in the region the last time North Korea acted up — the 80,000-ton, four-and-a-half-acre George Washington and its escorts. It could be argued the situation is worse now than it was in the immediate wake of the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan. Our relationship with China has suffered since and, by extension, so has our ability to respond diplomatically, since China is our only real means of reaching out to North Korea.
Another round of naval exercises would further tick off the Chinese and, given this morning’s news, would it be effective? How effective were those exercises this year if it failed to deter further aggression from North Korea?
The Defense Department said today it was monitoring the situation “with concern,” but that any discussion of a military response would be “premature.”
Meanwhile, South Korea put the word out that any further aggression from North Korea could be met with an “enormous” military response.
This situation could get ugly in the coming days. What do you think should be the response?
Time to start learning Chinese?
October 29th, 2010 | Carriers China Foreign navies | Posted by David Larter
The inevitable march towards doomsday continues for U.S. dominance of the high seas, according to a growing chorus of critics who say China’s aggressive stance on territorial claims in Asia threatens to file down the teeth of the Global Force for Good.
It’s rather a trendy opinion to hold these days, especially with all the clamor over China’s George Washington-neutralizing mega power missile.
Add Christian Science Monitor columnist Jim Bencivenga to the list of U.S. Navy nay-sayers. He says once China’s super-missile is online, the Navy will have lost its very manhood. He writes:
Pax Britannia is just a memory. What of Pax Americana, should the Chinese escalate their aggressive territorial claims in the East China Sea or South China Sea? Will a US commander in chief be able to “send in the carriers,” if the Chinese indeed have a “kill weapon” capable of taking out a US carrier with one hit, as reported by the US Naval Institute last year?
An emasculated naval force in the Pacific limits US military options to deter China. It even more greatly limits US diplomatic deterrents.
Bencivenga argues, essentially, that America’s spiraling debt will make dealing with China’s naval expansion all but impossible. So when you go to the voting booth, he says, make sure you vote for someone who will cut spending … except spending on the Navy, of course.
Oh yeah, he just went there
October 20th, 2010 | China Foreign navies Navy The Pacific | Posted by David Larter
Shinzo Abe said in a speech Oct. 15 China's military ambitions were akin to the Nazi idea of "lebensraum." Franck Robichon / EPA
In contemporary rhetoric, one popular way to demonize political adversaries is to compare them to Hitler. That’s just what conservative former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did at a speech at the Hudson Institute think tank on Capitol Hill last Friday. Relations between China and Japan have been rather tense of late, and the war of words seems to be heating up.
Abe likened China’s naval expansion to Hitler’s idea of “lebensraum” or “living space.” It was Hitler’s belief that Germany needed and, by their superior nature, deserved space in which to grow and settle. According to Abe’s remarks:
Since the 1980s, China’s military strategy has rested on the concept of a “strategic frontier.” In a nutshell, this very dangerous idea posits that borders and exclusive economic zones are determined by national power, and that as long as China’s economy continues to grow, its sphere of influence will continue to expand. Some might associate this with the German concept of “lebensraum.”
There has been speculation that the impetus for China’s naval buildup was the 1996 crisis in the Strait of Taiwan. Whenever I think back on this incident, I recall the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and the path that the Soviet Union took in its wake. The Soviet Union in 1962 and China in 1996 both suffered the indignity of capitulation in the face of the overwhelming naval power of the United States, and both countries threw themselves into building up their navies. We all know how well that worked out for the Soviet Union.
I have no way of knowing how the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party would view this analogy. Perhaps the party’s leaders, despite their fear of meeting the same fate as the Soviet Union, are unable to resist the call of the People’s Liberation Army for a military buildup. In any case, we can state with conviction that China has nothing to gain from an excessive expansion of its military.
If you are rusty on your mid-90s history, you can read up on the Taiwan Strait crisis here.
You can read Abe’s full remarks here.
Kaplan: America doomed
September 27th, 2010 | China | Posted by Phil Ewing
The Chinese destroyer Quingdao, and the endless flow of other, newer warships, will help China dominate the world, another analyst writes. // Navy
If big-dog world-affairs analyst Robert Kaplan is saying it, it means this thing is for real: Game over. That’s it. We had a good 234 years, but let’s face it, we Americans just can’t keep going anymore — not when China’s unstoppable economy and its burgeoning seapower mean that its influence is spreading across this world like a full glass of pinot noir dropped on a new white carpet.
Kaplan, in a Sunday column in the Washington Post, wrote that China’s growing navy will give it new tentacles with which to envelop the islands of the Pacific, and new power to keep pesky American warships at bay. China’s growing nonmilitary influence, including its international shipping and trade, will cement its new status as king of Earth. There’s nothing we can do, Kaplan seems to be saying: Our never-ending war in Afghanistan, along with the evil news media’s decision to ignore the rise of Chinese power, mean it’s all over but the shoutin’:
America’s preoccupation with the Middle East suits China perfectly. We are paying in blood and treasure to stabilize Afghanistan while China is building transport and pipeline networks throughout Central Asia that will ultimately reach Kabul and the trillion dollars’ worth of minerals lying underground. Whereas Americans ask how can we escape Afghanistan, the Chinese, who are already prospecting for copper there, ask: How can we stay? Our military mission in Afghanistan diverts us from properly reacting to the Chinese naval challenge in East Asia.
The United States should not consider China an enemy. But neither is it in our interest to be distracted while a Chinese economic empire takes shape across Eurasia. This budding empire is being built on our backs: the protection of the sea lines of communication by the U.S. Navy and the pacification of Afghanistan by U.S. ground troops. It is through such asymmetry — we pay far more to maintain what we have than it costs the Chinese to replace us — that great powers rise and fall. That is why the degree to which the United States can shift its focus from the Middle East to East Asia will say much about our future prospects as a great power.
That’s assuming we have any future prospects… if we want any, Bryan McGrath writes, we’d better act now.
The China report
August 16th, 2010 | China | Posted by Phil Ewing
"Nice to meet you, thanks so much for having us... so, what's the deal with your over-the-horizon targeting capabilities?" // Lance Cpl. Jeremy J. Harper / Marine Corps
The Pentagon released its latest report on Chinese military developments today, and there’s something in it for everyone: The Strategic Castration Missile? Of course! The Inevitable Fleet of Carriers? You bet. The People’s Glorious Underwear Display Strategy? Actually — no.
Take a look for yourself and leave a comment with your take. Was there anything that surprised you? Was there anything DoD left out?