The Archipelagic Defense Against China

Here's some new thinking about how to confront or contain Chinese naval forces. It's an interesting idea because islands can't be sunk. On the other hand, they're not mobile either.

Deterring China: The Archipelagic Defense - James Holmes, RCD


Andrew Krepinevich has an important essay in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. The article constitutes his brief for “archipelagic defense” in Asia. Krepinevich is the grand wizard of the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and author of the standard work on the U.S. Army in Vietnam. He espouses emplacing missile-armed troops along Asia’s “first island chain” as a deterrent. Anti-ship and anti-air units acting in concert with surface, submarine, and air forces could bar passage through the narrow seas that separate the islands.
Or, more accurately, fortifying the islands would threaten to confine shipping and aircraft within the China seas. Krepinevich aims that threat squarely at China. If Beijing believes it, the leadership may refrain from future misadventures at fellow Asian powers’ expense. That’s a congenial thesis. Indeed, my longtime wingman Toshi Yoshihara and I have been pitching similar ideas for some years now, both together and separately. Always good to welcome a new ally. . . .

Seems like a viable way to remind China to keep its aspirations in check. I could see it manned by the Japanese and South Koreans.

Myself, I largely discount the PLAN for a great many reasons.

Fisrt of all, it is hard to take seriously a Naval force that is called the "People's Liberation Army Navy".

Second, it has almost no "Blue Water Navy" experience, primarily acting more like a Coast Guard then an actual Navy.

It's composition is seriously lacking when comparing to a "Full Navy" like the US. Their most serious ships capable of conducting offensive operations are the 25 Destroyers and a handfull of submarines. The US Navy in the Pacific Fleet alone has 25 Destroyers, 2 or more Carriers, and a dozen nuclear submarines. The US has been conducting extended fleet operations in theatre for over half a century, the PLAN is still learning these skills.

If the PLAN tried to convert it's fleet structure into that revolving around it's single carrier (with no aircraft), it is going to remove a lot of it's destroyers from offensive meeions and then put them in a defensive role.

UNREP. UNderway REPlenishment is a key logistical skill that largely seperates a real "Blue Water Navy" from a Coast Guard. And it is a skill that China is sorely lacking in. Being able to maintain and replenish ships at sea for months at a time is a skill that takes decades to refine. China often moves it's ships from Somalia back to China for such after 2-3 months simply because they lack the skills and ships needed to conduct extended operations. This is a far cry from the US which has been known to keep entire fleets at sea for 6-10 months.

AEW. Airborn Early Warning is another key skill that the US has refined over the decades, and has a lot of platforms. China on the other hand in keeping with it's shotgun equipment system has a grand total of 24 AEW aircraft spread over around 8 platforms. None of which is a Naval version. The US has over 250 E-2 carrier capable AEW aircraft (and our E-3 707 inventory alone is over 2 times the entire PLAAF AEW inventory).

The reasons I do not seriously worry about them is simply that outside of a nation touching them by land, China is not much of a threat. They pretty much lack any capability to project force.

Oozlefinch said:

Myself, I largely discount the PLAN for a great many reasons.

Fisrt of all, it is hard to take seriously a Naval force that is called the "People's Liberation Army Navy".

Second, it has almost no "Blue Water Navy" experience, primarily acting more like a Coast Guard then an actual Navy.

It's composition is seriously lacking when comparing to a "Full Navy" like the US. Their most serious ships capable of conducting offensive operations are the 25 Destroyers and a handfull of submarines. The US Navy in the Pacific Fleet alone has 25 Destroyers, 2 or more Carriers, and a dozen nuclear submarines. The US has been conducting extended fleet operations in theatre for over half a century, the PLAN is still learning these skills.

If the PLAN tried to convert it's fleet structure into that revolving around it's single carrier (with no aircraft), it is going to remove a lot of it's destroyers from offensive meeions and then put them in a defensive role.

UNREP. UNderway REPlenishment is a key logistical skill that largely seperates a real "Blue Water Navy" from a Coast Guard. And it is a skill that China is sorely lacking in. Being able to maintain and replenish ships at sea for months at a time is a skill that takes decades to refine. China often moves it's ships from Somalia back to China for such after 2-3 months simply because they lack the skills and ships needed to conduct extended operations. This is a far cry from the US which has been known to keep entire fleets at sea for 6-10 months.

AEW. Airborn Early Warning is another key skill that the US has refined over the decades, and has a lot of platforms. China on the other hand in keeping with it's shotgun equipment system has a grand total of 24 AEW aircraft spread over around 8 platforms. None of which is a Naval version. The US has over 250 E-2 carrier capable AEW aircraft (and our E-3 707 inventory alone is over 2 times the entire PLAAF AEW inventory).

The reasons I do not seriously worry about them is simply that outside of a nation touching them by land, China is not much of a threat. They pretty much lack any capability to project force.

Click to expand...

Do you think China's green water(?) naval assets are capable of projecting any threats to the region? Would these bases be a deterrent in any way?

Oozlefinch said:

Myself, I largely discount the PLAN for a great many reasons.

Fisrt of all, it is hard to take seriously a Naval force that is called the "People's Liberation Army Navy".

Second, it has almost no "Blue Water Navy" experience, primarily acting more like a Coast Guard then an actual Navy.

It's composition is seriously lacking when comparing to a "Full Navy" like the US. Their most serious ships capable of conducting offensive operations are the 25 Destroyers and a handfull of submarines. The US Navy in the Pacific Fleet alone has 25 Destroyers, 2 or more Carriers, and a dozen nuclear submarines. The US has been conducting extended fleet operations in theatre for over half a century, the PLAN is still learning these skills.

If the PLAN tried to convert it's fleet structure into that revolving around it's single carrier (with no aircraft), it is going to remove a lot of it's destroyers from offensive meeions and then put them in a defensive role.

UNREP. UNderway REPlenishment is a key logistical skill that largely seperates a real "Blue Water Navy" from a Coast Guard. And it is a skill that China is sorely lacking in. Being able to maintain and replenish ships at sea for months at a time is a skill that takes decades to refine. China often moves it's ships from Somalia back to China for such after 2-3 months simply because they lack the skills and ships needed to conduct extended operations. This is a far cry from the US which has been known to keep entire fleets at sea for 6-10 months.

AEW. Airborn Early Warning is another key skill that the US has refined over the decades, and has a lot of platforms. China on the other hand in keeping with it's shotgun equipment system has a grand total of 24 AEW aircraft spread over around 8 platforms. None of which is a Naval version. The US has over 250 E-2 carrier capable AEW aircraft (and our E-3 707 inventory alone is over 2 times the entire PLAAF AEW inventory).

The reasons I do not seriously worry about them is simply that outside of a nation touching them by land, China is not much of a threat. They pretty much lack any capability to project force.

Click to expand...

From what I read that is a very sorry assessment...

China is projecting serious power in the South China Sea - Business Insider

Fearandloathing said:

From what I read that is a very sorry assessment...

China is projecting serious power in the South China Sea - Business Insider

Click to expand...

And that island is nothing new, many of us have been talking about it for years now.

Where in that assessment does it talk about UNREP? About AEW capabilities? Where is the discussion about logistics and airlift and sealift capacity?

Here is a quote from your own source:

Chinese and Russian navies staged exercises on the East China Sea on Saturday to simulate anti-submarine and search-and-rescue operations. A total of 14 surface ships, two submarines, nine fixed-wing warplanes, six shipboard helicopters and two operational detachments are taking part in this year's week-long drill, state media reported.

Click to expand...

14 ships and 2 boats from 2 countries operating a short distance offshore. A real threat, real "serious power"...

Not. The US has a larger fleet then that in Japan alone.

US Conservative said:

Do you think China's green water(?) naval assets are capable of projecting any threats to the region? Would these bases be a deterrent in any way?

Click to expand...

To a very limited extent.

Remember, the PLAN is organized more as a coast guard then a traditional Navy. Protecting their own home waters, not projecting force into other areas.

Deterrent, yes. But a Navy is not supposed to deter, it is supposed to project. And that is the capability they are sorely lacking. Could they cause problems to say Japan or Philippines or ROC? Yes, they could - for a limited amount of time. And they dare not go to close to any of these nations, their own lack of naval air power would be a major issue once they come within range of those nations land based aircraft. Without any kind of CAP, they would be sitting ducks and would have to withdraw.

Oozlefinch said:

And that island is nothing new, many of us have been talking about it for years now.

Where in that assessment does it talk about UNREP? About AEW capabilities? Where is the discussion about logistics and airlift and sealift capacity?

Here is a quote from your own source:



14 ships and 2 boats from 2 countries operating a short distance offshore. A real threat, real "serious power"...

Not. The US has a larger fleet then that in Japan alone.

Click to expand...

It was my understanding in the past that the Chinese were making a substantial investment in land-based anti-ship missiles. Was that true? And if so, how much would that matter?

Jack Hays said:

It was my understanding in the past that the Chinese were making a substantial investment in land-based anti-ship missiles. Was that true? And if so, how much would that matter?

Click to expand...

Land based are only good if you take several things into consideration.

For one, the enemy ships have to be close enough for them to be targeted. The US can do things like that because it has significant AEW assets to accurately target ships over the horizon. China does not have that ability.

Oh, they do have the DF-21D, or so they claim. The "aircraft carrier killer ballistic missile", which few take seriously. Really, a MRBM that can track and accurately hit a moving ship over 1,000 miles away? China does not even have the capability to locate and track a ship from that distance, let alone hit it with a ballistic missile (nobody does, which is why not even the US or USSR-Russia ever tried to develop an anti-ship ballistic missile). And as a side note, the US-USSR abandoned conventional ballistic missiles out of fear that launching one would alarm the other side they were launching a nuke. The DF-21 system is primarily a nuclear weapon platform, what do you think the reaction is going to be when thee Fleet Commander and President get an alert warning "Inbound Nuclear Ballistic Missile Launch"?

Plus any inbound missile has to survive a gauntlet of AEGIS class ships, loaded with missiles designed to take out other missiles. Yes, including ballistic missiles.

Land based missiles are largely a deterent to keep ships away from a coastal region, and are limited in effect. Say for example the Persian Gulf, which is narrow so were used to great effect in the Tanker War. In a hypothetical war with the US they would be much less effective, because the US would keep it's ships out of range until the threat is eliminated.

This is why for example the US does not have anti-ship missiles along it's shore. We would use ground based aircraft to much greater effect at ranges shore based missiles would be worthless.

Oozlefinch said:

Land based are only good if you take several things into consideration.

For one, the enemy ships have to be close enough for them to be targeted. The US can do things like that because it has significant AEW assets to accurately target ships over the horizon. China does not have that ability.

Oh, they do have the DF-21D, or so they claim. The "aircraft carrier killer ballistic missile", which few take seriously. Really, a MRBM that can track and accurately hit a moving ship over 1,000 miles away? China does not even have the capability to locate and track a ship from that distance, let alone hit it with a ballistic missile (nobody does, which is why not even the US or USSR-Russia ever tried to develop an anti-ship ballistic missile). And as a side note, the US-USSR abandoned conventional ballistic missiles out of fear that launching one would alarm the other side they were launching a nuke. The DF-21 system is primarily a nuclear weapon platform, what do you think the reaction is going to be when thee Fleet Commander and President get an alert warning "Inbound Nuclear Ballistic Missile Launch"?

Plus any inbound missile has to survive a gauntlet of AEGIS class ships, loaded with missiles designed to take out other missiles. Yes, including ballistic missiles.

Land based missiles are largely a deterent to keep ships away from a coastal region, and are limited in effect. Say for example the Persian Gulf, which is narrow so were used to great effect in the Tanker War. In a hypothetical war with the US they would be much less effective, because the US would keep it's ships out of range until the threat is eliminated.

This is why for example the US does not have anti-ship missiles along it's shore. We would use ground based aircraft to much greater effect at ranges shore based missiles would be worthless.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Jack Hays said:

Thanks.

Click to expand...

No problem.

People often do not notice that I am first and foremost an analyst. I do not put patriotism or nationality into consideration when logically examining such a situation. I look at the capabilities (not only offensive and defensive but logistically) of each side and try to see what the strenghts and weaknesses of each side is.

I will never deny that China has among the most powerful deterents in the world. A huge military force, with a stunning number of tanks and missile systems. In addition, a lot of aircraft. Enough of all of these to make pretty much every nation in the world sit back and think twice in trying to tangle with them in their own back yard.

However, the majority of these assets are seriously antiquated. And they have not been in a serious conflict in over 50 years so their military is not experienced and tactics are either outdated or untested.

Most telling in all of them though is their lack of logistics ability. No logistics, no ability to fight very far outside their own borders. Unlike 200 years ago, a modern military can not "live off of the land".

So in analysis, China has a potent defensive military, with very limited projection power. Lots and lots of equipment, so they could endire for a while in a war of attrition but would take heavy casualties in doing so. The US on the other hand has dedicated it's military specifically as a projection force, with the logistics to keep it in the field for an extended length of time and weapons dedicated to extending reach with precision.

If China was to seriously try and extend a military force into say the waters and land of the Philippines, the reaction should be obvious. Former US bases in the Philippines reopened as US bases (this is already happening on a limited scale), and the US goes in to help it's traditional ally in the area. And odds are it might even be enough for Japan to once and for all discard the concept that they are a "Self-Defense Force" and the Imperial Japanese Navy and Imperial Japanese Army will likely return.

And all of the "shore based" missiles will be of no help at all when the US is primarily operating with land based aircraft from the Philippines, and ships operating to the East of the Phillpines (or hidden among the islands). Aircraft to take out those missile batteries one island at a time, then would have to see where the action goes from there.

Oh, and do not forget the 3rd Marine Division, most of them on Okinawa.