Posted on 02/19/2005 9:06:21 AM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
China is experiencing the greatest national expansion of its shipbuilding industry in the country's maritime history, with growth expected to continue well into the next decade. China's shipbuilding industry currently ranks third overall in the world behind perennial leaders South Korea and Japan, with the goal of becoming the world's leading shipbuilder by 2015. But what does this mean for the U.S.?
This dramatic increase in Chinese shipbuilding activity has raised concern among top U.S. Navy officials, Western military strategists and senior members of Congress. Their concern lies not with the existence of the Chinese maritime industry, rather, with the possible surreptitious conversion of this industry for purposes of military marine transportation and naval surface ship engagement. Many experts have argued that the new Chinese ships could be used to carry not only peacetime goods such as automobiles, electronics and textiles, but alternatively, soldiers, tanks, artillery pieces, and attack helicopters.
In a November article, William R. Hawkins of the U.S. Business and Industry Council noted that a disquieting, technological intermingling had already occurred in the Chinese aviation industry. While in China to attend the 5th Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai, Hawkins observed that, "It was clear from the displays that there is no segregation of civilian from military aviation activities. The Chinese principle of Jun-min jiehe, or combine the military with the civil, was evident." Most disturbing to Hawkins was the presence of American and Western firms at the exhibition peddling sophisticated technology that could be used by China against U.S. military assets in the Pacific.
China has previously displayed a willingness to purchase tactical maritime assets and systems that it was unable to manufacture domestically on the open-market. An example of this strategy is the country's purchase of Sovremenny-class destroyers from their chief arms supplier – Russia. With a maximum displacement of 8,480 tons, they are similar to the U.S. Navy's Aegis-equipped missile cruisers. These advanced destroyers give China a sea-borne capability to strike U.S. carriers from a distance of 250 km away, using SS-N-22 radar evading, anti-ship Sunburn missiles. The Sovremenny-class destroyers are much more dangerous than anything China has been able to produce domestically. With its superior armament, propulsion system, comprehensive electronic warfare systems and radar, the Sovremenny-class destroyer is head-and-shoulders above the Chinese-made Luhai-class destroyer.
Should China become paradoxical in its public policy approach of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, Western experts fear the country could initiate or accelerate "reverse engineering" processes to reproduce ships with Sovremenny-type offensive capabilities using newly constructed and renovated shipyards.
Coinciding with the growth of the Chinese shipbuilding industry has been a precipitous decrease in the number of available U.S. Navy surface ships. The number of U.S. Navy ships has declined from a total of 594 in 1987 to 289 in 2004 -- the smallest U.S. Navy since 1917. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, which is scheduled to be conducted again in 2005, recommended a Navy of 310 ships. Conversely, others close to the debate, such as ADM. Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, have suggested that an increase to 375 ships is necessary to meet present and emerging threats. This discrepancy highlights the ongoing debate within the U.S. Navy concerning the appropriate size of the U.S. Naval fleet.
Proposed budget cuts of $60 billion over a period of six years were announced by the Pentagon in late December. The cuts call for a reduction in the construction programs for the new LPD-17 Amphibious Attack Ship, the DD(X) Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship, and the retirement of one of the Navy's oldest aircraft carriers, the USS John F. Kennedy. The retirement of the JFK is especially perplexing, since the 30-year-old carrier recently received a $300 million updating of all of its systems and was scheduled to begin a 14-month overhaul at the Norfolk Navel Shipyard starting in June 2005.
The proposed cuts have heightened uncertainty surrounding the U.S. Navy's future configuration, mission and abilities. The retirement of the carrier JFK next year ahead of its originally scheduled 2018 decommissioning date, will reduce the Navy's carrier fleet for the first time since the mid-1990's. There has been talk in Washington of reducing the carrier fleet even further from the current total of 12 to 9 in the next decade. At $11.7 billion, discussions concerning the construction of a new generation of carrier are now in doubt, due to severe budget constraints. U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, (R-Virginia), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said recently, "I feel the Navy has to bear a part of the cuts. But carriers have been instrumental. I'm not going to desert my strong philosophy that sea power is essential to the war on terrorism."
As the debate regarding the production of ships rages, the U.S. Naval fleet continues to age. Based on a 30-year lifespan, an average of 10 ships a year should be built to maintain a surface fleet of 314 ships. The Navy's current build rate is only half this number, which means the average age of a Navy ship will gradually increase. As such, maintenance and repair costs associated with an older fleet will also increase exponentially, placing a financial burden upon the U.S. Navy.
U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) commenting in September on the proposed reduction in construction from nine Navy ships surface ships to four in 2006, stated, "We're not meeting our needs and we have a tremendous bow wave ahead of us where ships are being retired twice as fast as we can replace them." U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) concurred, saying, "As our nation continues to fight the global war on terror, now is clearly not the time to be under-funding our critical military infrastructure by diminishing the Navy's fleet size."
Whatever the final number of ships, both the U.S. Navy and Congress recognize that the U.S. has global forward-presence responsibilities that must be met without hesitation. Added to these responsibilities will be the ability for the U.S. to monitor a Chinese shipbuilding industry that is diversifying, expanding, and modernizing.
Commercial shipbuilding is a strategic industry capable of conversion for the purposes of war. China has embarked on a determined mission to surpass both Japan and South Korea as the world's leading shipbuilder. The Chinese can now offer state-of-the-art shipbuilding, repair and conversion services as a result of increased domestic and foreign investment in maritime modernization projects. With improved shipbuilding production methods, modern capital equipment for its shipyards and significant progress in the areas of ship design, speed, and on/offloading capabilities, China's shipbuilding industry deserves the attention of the U.S. and its Pacific allies as a possible national security threat.
The Sovremenny class is good as long as it is able to shoot off it's missiles in a first strike-it's useless if that's not the case.China is currently building or buying ships which are far better than it's existing Sovremennys.
Shipbuilding is an industry that has always been dominated by emerging economies, both in Europe and Asia. It consumes a lot of raw materials and creates a lot of jobs. What's new here? I don't think there is anything to be concerned about and there is nothing we can do about it anyway. Eventually China's economy will expand to the point where shipbuilding will not longer be profitable. Then perhaps, Brazil will discover new market opportunities. Maybe, eventually, it will even come back to the US who at one time led the world in shipbuilding. Its just part of the cycle.
With a population five times that of the United States, this is a game we cannot win with an economicly sound China. I and others have tried to piont that out for a decade or more, but it was to no avail.
Even if China only sparks 50% of it's population's enterprise spirit, that will wind up with it having 750 million people involved. Our economy will will be lucky to see 175 million people involved.
Helping to finance China's revival, jump start it's production capabilities and transfer our technology to them across the board, was the single most suicidal act of any nation at any time in all of recorded history.
more bad news from asia.
You're unconcerned that our National Defense industries are selling military technology to the Chinese?
I agree wholeheartedly ... gotta run now, heading to Wal-Mart to buy some cheap stuff!
I agree. But why do we need to win? Did the rise of the US hurt Great Britain?
Helping to finance China's revival, jump start it's production capabilities and transfer our technology to them across the board, was the single most suicidal act of any nation at any time in all of recorded history.
I completely disagree. China actually greatly limited the pernicious effects of our most recent recession.
China will only become economically sound, and pass the US in economic power, by further freeing up its economy. I believe that will happen because the culture of China is changing dramatically, and there's very little the Chinese leaders can do about it, so they are being forced to change. An economically free and prosperous China that is rapidly becoming Christianized will be a phenomenal boost to America in the coming decades.
Oh get outa here... heh heh heh.
LOL. Exactly.
I don't think $650 billion dollars in money spent overseas and not in the U.S., was a boon for our economy. With the multiplier effect, we're talking about between $3 and $5 trillion dollars in lost economic activity in the U.S.
I'm not really concerned. There is still a global arms sales ban against China. I doubt we are selling anything that is really militarily significant unless our government has totally abrogated its responsibilities with regards to laws about technology transfers and foreign military sales. In my mind, that would be the national security issue.
If that's how it works, why not ban all trade with foreigners? Then all those trillions will be spent right here in the US, right?
Oh good grief...
a free trader who thinks this is about "Christianizing" China...
Whata buncha bologna.
We're talking about China, a nation that charges 40% tariffs on our products moving across it's ports, which purchases roughly 10% the volume of goods from us, that we purchase from it. We only charge a few percent of tariffs on it's merchandise.
This is neither balanced or reasoned.
The EU is intent on lifting it's arms embargo(& this includes Britain) on the PRC & it will probably be done this year-that will change equations significantly.For one,they produce high-quality systems on par with American systems,which rarely get publicity due to lack of exports & lack of support from their own militaries. Moreoever,the integration of European electronics onto Russian or Chinese weaponry will make those systems far more potent as well.
I don't think that's what free trade about, nor did I say that. I'm just pointing out what is happening in China right now.
Not only is their past 25-year economic boom literally unprecedented in world history, but the spread of Christianity there is unlike anything seen since the Roman Empire in the 2nd Century.
I don't think that is the intent of capitalists wanting to trade with China, but it is something that has happened. I don't think it's a coincidence either.
I solicit your opinion regarding ways to counter the threat other than a pure surface engagement.
We are a republic NO MORE...
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.