We have known about China's boomer capability for several years. Not when Panda-Huggers such as Poohbah and Ronald Montaperto kept people disinformed. This article is about that very phenomenon...the Pentagon had bad intelligence and didn't think these would be operational nearly as soon as they now are. Why?
It is not alarming.
The speed with which they attained operational status confounds the rose-colored glass-wearers predictions. Their degree of quietness is beyond that predicted as well.
China knows we can see to the bottom of the ocean as if it were a clear air on a sunny day at the beach.
Several points need to be made in reply to this point:
First, Synthetic Aperature Radar assets require satellites we no longer have functional. If anything, it might be a capability that the Chinese will have...and we won't due to lassitude. As Alamo-Girl reported...we lost the mathematical secrets which enabled this tecnhology by an expatriate Chinese scientist from Lawrence Livermore blabbing when he went to visit China...
Second, they were never "real-time" in surveillance, requiring massive post-acquisition signal processing. Third, although they could give us a narrower area of where to hunt, they weren't perfect. And Fourth, even with the narrower area of focus ...Our ASW assets are today just a pale shadow of themselves after the Xlinton Peace Dividends. And many of our assets, such as the Viking S-3, are retired or so old...they should be like the Orion P-3C ASW patrol plane.
Current defense budget cutbacks threaten the Navy’s Boeing Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft, which would at long last replace the latter...but not until sometime late in the next decade...
On an emergency basis, we should consider the following: The U.S. Navy should consider the rapid improvement of its anti-submarine capabilities, to include re-activating 5-10 retired Spruance class destroyers to improve its deep-ocean ASW capability. The Navy should also consider re-activating the anti-submarine warfare capability on 4 squadrons of Lockheed S-3 Viking carrier-based ASW aircraft-a capability that was removed in 1999.
I have not read the first article, and I have not not read the Constitution. However, I will, and thanks for bringing those to my attention.
A friend told me in a discussion last year that he viewed China as a threat solely based on the communist government. Having been to the mainland once before (in 2001), I can say that China is no longer communist from an economic standpoint. There's a rising middle class, and that's something that would not have worked out half a century ago.
That's what I mean by "in name only."
Now, from the political standpoint? Yes, the CCP is still in firm control. There are many American freedoms that don't exist in China.
Communist or not, the U.S. and the PRC have diplomatic relations. The same cannot be said of Iran and North Korea. I believe those two nations pose far greater threats to the U.S. than China.
You also neglect to see the progress toward a new generation of surface ships. For example, a new aircraft carrier that will have enormously larger capabilities than the current Nimitz Class Carrier.
There is no telling on what the funding levels of the NMD will be in the future and even with current funding levels there has been many successes. With the death of the NPT, every president well into the future will have to see the wisdom of the NMD because we don't have the military capability to stuff the Nuclear genie back into the bottle.
I will also bring to your mind that George W. isn't Bill and the deployment of the Navy is different and there has also been a rise in the commitment toward Taiwan.
We never see or heard what those American subs are doing when they leave on a six-month deployment. Some of their missions are very Top Secret. I think it safe to bet they could be floating off the coast of China and North Korea. What we see of the machinations of the great powers in the world is only a fraction of what is really going on.
You also neglect to see the progress toward a new generation of surface ships. For example, a new aircraft carrier that will have enormously larger capabilities than the current Nimitz Class Carrier.I am not "neglecting" any such progress. It simply is not a serious naval program when it times or sequences deployments based on a rosy view of the China threat time-line. Just as it miscalculated on deploying MTHEL aka "Skyguard" when we should have had it years ago...and now the Israeli's are getting pounded.
As far as the CVX is concerned...
Fact: CVN-21 is on the Slow-track. Won't materialize til 2016-17.
There is no telling on what the funding levels of the NMD will be in the future and even with current funding levels there has been many successes.
And no guarantee we will even sustain current levels. And we have virtually no deployments consonant with those successes. Nor follow-on serious testing. That just fuels the enemies of testing or deployments in the first place who are opposed to the entire concept.
With the death of the NPT, every president well into the future will have to see the wisdom of the NMD because we don't have the military capability to stuff the Nuclear genie back into the bottle.
If they were rational. But I harbor no such hope. E.g., I would not expect the DemocRATS to ever come into the 20th century, let alone the 21st and admit this. Last I heard, they still lamely shriek about the ABM Treaty cancellation.
I will also bring to your mind that George W. isn't Bill and the deployment of the Navy is different and there has also been a rise in the commitment toward Taiwan.
True, and true. However, you need to recognize another fact. The Administration is actually deploying fewer ships annually than the previous one. We are down to 280 ships now currently.
Did you see this little factoid-filled news report?
Senators Reed and Collins Ask Defense Department to Increase Navy Shipbuilding
Senators write to Secretary Rumsfeld to request shipbuilding budget increase Friday, June 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC— In an effort to strengthen the U.S. Navy and fortify our national security, Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Susan Collins (R-ME), both members of the Senate Armed Services committee, today sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld urging him to consider increasing the Navy’s shipbuilding budget in the coming fiscal year.
Fourteen Senators joined Reed and Collins in sending this letter to the Pentagon. They include Senators Snowe, Talent, Lott, Vitter, Graham, DeWine, Chafee, Akaka, Lieberman, Dodd, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Bill Nelson, and Cantwell.
The Department of Defense is currently preparing the military budget requests for fiscal year 2008.
Following is the text of the letter.
Dear Mr. Secretary: As you prepare the fiscal year 2008 budget for the Department of Defense, we write to urge that you increase the Navy’s top line allocation in order to provide the necessary resources of $14 billion for new naval ship procurement.
Admiral Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations, has submitted a 313-ship plan to Congress, and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review endorsed building a larger fleet. According to the CNO, approximately $14 billion is needed annually to finance the ship construction outlined in the Navy’s long-term plan. While the top line budget of the Department of Defense has increased over 50 percent since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the ship procurement budget has been reduced by 17 percent, shrinking our naval fleet from 341 ships in 2001 to 280 ships today. Capability is important to be sure, but numbers also matter because of the need for continued global presence.
Our national security requires that a high priority be placed upon providing sustained funding to maintain and build up our naval fleet to counter existing and emerging threats. DoD’s own reports have highlighted the rapid expansion of China’s blue water Navy. Some experts have projected that China’s Navy will outnumber the U.S. fleet by 2015—less than one decade from now. Intelligence reports have also underscored the fact that China is rapidly improving the capability of the naval ships it is building. A robust U.S. fleet, and the funding required to build and maintain that force, is essential to our nation’s security.
Your support of the budget requirements outlined by our Navy leadership is critical if the decline of our fleet is to be reversed. Thank you for your leadership in this important area to strengthen our homeland and national security.
No, I don't want Bubba back...just making a very critical point here about the credibility, or lack thereto of this Administration, which campaigned on restoring defense procurements... Here is the Conservative Caucus's observations on his budgets:
BUSH’S NAVAL REDUCTION BUDGET IS VERY DANGEROUS "President Bush’s plan for the Navy calls for buying fewer ships, while China, a potential security hot spot, is increasing and repositioning its fleet. It’s a prospect that concerns some lawmakers. …
"The Pentagon says buying fewer ships than previously planned won’t affect combat ability. Previous budgets envisioned purchasing six Virginia-class attack submarines, seven DD(X) destroyers and 10 San Antonio-class amphibious landing ships through 2011."
DOWN FROM SIX TO THREE SUBMARINES, SEVEN TO FIVE DESTROYERS, AND ONE LESS CARRIER
"The 2006 budget calls for three submarines, five destroyers and nine landing ships. It also proposes eliminating one of the Navy’s 12 aircraft carriers. … The budget calls for buying fewer planes, ships and submarines in favor of spending more on counterterrorism."
RED CHINA ADDS, U.S SUBTRACTS
"Republicans and Democrats argued that cutting back now could jeopardize the Navy’s long-term domination of the seas, particularly in light of China’s military improvements. …
" ‘I recognize that our naval fleet still remains the most technologically advanced in the world. But the decreasing number of ships being procured, particularly in the light of the Chinese buildup, really concerns me,’ [Republican Sen. Susan Collins] said.
" ‘Are you concerned about projections that the Chinese fleet may well surpass the American fleet in terms of numbers in just a decade’s time?’
" ‘Senator,’ [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld replied, ‘it is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to.’ …
"China has invested heavily in its own defense in the past few years. Prohibited from buying U.S. and European arms under an embargo, Beijing purchased at least $13 billion worth of weapons from Russia between 1993 and 2003, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. China’s arsenals now are stocked with Russian-made submarines, destroyers, supersonic fighters and anti-ship missiles, as well as weapons it increasingly is making on its own.
"CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week that China last year increased its ballistic missile forces and rolled out several new submarines. ‘Improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region,’ Goss said. … Rumsfeld has said, China is moving its naval vessels farther from its shores.
"Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., told Rumsfeld during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday that he recently returned from China with ‘a big concern’ about the U.S. fleet after he witnessed China’s naval buildup.
" ‘We looked at their steel mills,’ Forbes said. ‘They’re throwing out steel as fast as you can watch it; running it 24 hours a day.’ " Source: NewsMax.com Wires, 2/18/05 We never see or heard what those American subs are doing when they leave on a six-month deployment. Some of their missions are very Top Secret. I think it safe to bet they could be floating off the coast of China and North Korea. What we see of the machinations of the great powers in the world is only a fraction of what is really going on.