Nomar: Yes, CVBG = Carrier Battle Group. Yes, that includes the cruisers and destroyers. Typically 1-2 SSNs, 1-2 Ticonderoga CGs (like the San Jacinto), 1-2 DDGs (Arleigh Burkes, really smaller Ticos), a Spruance DD (loaded with Tomahawks), and a FFG (frigate). Typically anywhere from 5-8 surface combat ships protecting the carrier... They can shoot down an amazing number of missiles. And no bomber will ever get through as long as everyone's paying attention... The outer perimeter of their defensive net stretches out to about 700 nautical miles, with a heavily layered defense. New sub - the 688I (Improved Los Angeles) is currently the backbone of the fleet. We have one Seawolf (possibly two, not sure), and a new SSN is in the works (Virginia class, I believe). It will really just be a suped-up 688I, but still better than anything anyone else has. Also, we're looking at converting a couple of the Ohios (SSBNs) over to cruise missile platforms... As for the (soon to be) Indian subs, theoretically they could creep across the Pacific and launch against the western US, but my guess is that the second that we think that India might be a hostile entity, those subs will have a 688I trailing them everywhere they go, and might even be quietly sunk. Similar situation to the single Chinese SSBN - it has a 688I trailing it at all times...
HayesStreet: Again: why have the Indians sent battle groups into the S. China Sea? You don't fight piracy with a battle group. There is only one reason to do so: to test Chinese reactions. Again: Oil. Looming energy crisis. No way around that one. Again: the new acquisitions do nothing to change the US-India naval balance equation. They know that they can not hope to beat a US CVBG, even with these new assets. It only changes the equation with respect to the Indo-China balance. They are perfect allies against the Chinese. I am not so naive to think that we're going to agree on every issue (we don't even agree with the Brits on every issue), but that is one major issue to agree on. Now, you're not likely to find too much literature about the Indians challenging the Chinese in the South China Sea, because in the past that has simply not been an option for them. Most of the literature has focused on a PLAN-USN conflict because we have traditionally been seen as the only ones who could seriously challenge them there. With another carrier, though, and with two advanced SSNs, the Indo-Sino balance changes. And (I'll keep coming back to this) the "tests" that India has conducted there (sending battlegroups) have no other purpose. Traditionally, the literature over the China-India naval balance has been in reference to Chinese power projection thru the Straits of Malacca (which you mentioned) and into the IO. This has mostly postulated a defensive set for India. But if the naval balance changes in India's favor (as it appears it is), then the tables are turned, and you start talking about a defensive set for China. That brings up the question about India's energy needs (which are irrelevant if India is only focused on defensive sets), and that takes you to the Spratleys. And I just have to keep coming back to India's energy needs. They will either have to ensure a supply from the Persian Gulf (doubtful in the long term), somehow tap the Caucasus (extremely doubtful), or obtain their own supply. The Spratleys are the only option in the region to do that. Their energy needs are not going to go away.
HayesStreet: Just to add, I should point out that a "India seizing the Spratleys for itself" scenario is not necessarily the only one that could pan out. It is probably more likely that a "India comes to Vietnam's or Brunei's aid against the Chinese in order to ensure supply" scenario would play out. The major thing to keep in mind here is that if the naval balance between China and India is altered, scenarios such as these become distinct possibilities.
for everyone else besides tree and hayes who want to know what they hell they are talking about and exactly what and where the elusive "Spratly Islands" are - go to the link http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/political_science/MIIIE/chinaInternal.htm
Yeah. The San Jac was damn cool treeman. You ever been on one? DAMN! Ohio-class, thats what I was thinking of, not Chicago. Have you seen some artist sketches of our new Stealth Navy? Those stealth ships look badass. As well as the JSF. Its supposedly invisible?!? Its made of like transparent material. Wow. Crazy ****. Jee whiz, I sure love those Red Sox.
Nomar: They've got some really neat stuff on the drawing board as far as the stealth ships go. Actually, every combat ship we build from here on out is going to be stealthy to some degree or other... Well, pretty much everything we build from here on out is stealthy to some degree. Aircraft, armored vehicles, ships... Everything. Much of it is likely to be automated, as well (robots). JSF is not transparent, though. It's just stealthy, perhaps on a par with the F-117.
No. They can build up their Navy for increased prestige in Southeast Asia and on the world stage. That is one reason. Keeping the sea lanes open is another (note that I even included a quote about those Indian naval actions in the SCS and how they were specifically there to address piracy). Although today we think of Errol Flynn movies and the Jolly Roger when we think of pirates, piracy is a real problem in the SCS and its implications go way beyond single ship incidents. In fact, many analysts predict the problem could cause a miscalculation and subsequent escalation between nation-states in the region. That is a second reason. Testing Chinese reactions while scouting for future naval incursions into the Spratly's is PURE 100% conjecture on your part. You could just as easily argue that Japan has a huge energy problem and they have a bigger naval capability than India, and that THEY were a threat to invade the Spratly's. Its much more likely although the probability is near zero. As long as we're clear that your Spratly's scenario is exactly that: Treeman's Crisis Predictions. There is no basis for this prediction from ANY analysts, despite the fact that the Spratly's is considered one of the most likely flashpoints for conflict in the next 5-20 years. And the literature on this issue is voluminous.
IMO I don’t think any foreign threat is stupid enough to try to engage one of our navy groups head on (conventional attack through the air or sea). Just curious, but could a suicidal mini-sub smaller than a killer whale (or even a couple of divers using fin power) sneak a small nuclear warhead past the high tech defense and put it underneath a carrier and detonate? Or can we discriminate through sonar small approaching metallic or nuclear devices from a dolphin or large tuna or what not?
HayesStreet: Why do you refuse to acknowledge India's looming energy crisis as a major factor? I am telling you, in 10 years that is going to be India's primary strategic concern. There is no way around it. Stop ignoring it - it is central to the argument. I did not say that the piracy issue and "showing the flag" were unimportant. They are important. But the energy issue dwarfs them in importance. India will have to secure a constant inflow of energy resources, and as I said that either comes from the ME, it comes from the Caucasus/Caspian Basin, or it comes from the South China Sea. There are no other options. Just exactly what do you think would close the sea lanes in the first place? Piracy alone is not going to do that. The PLAN will. The Orions, Harpoons, and Sea Hawks will all be useful against Pakistan, but they are meant to obtain sea control against the PLAN. Note that 2 or these 3 platforms are ASW platforms - not a great concern where the Paks are concerned. Indian Navy needs ASW platforms for use against China. I'm sure you're aware that Japan and India have been strengthening defense ties over the past couple of years... They might well work together in some capacity in a future South China Sea conflict. We might work with both of them in such a conflict. I'm actually glad you mentioned it, though, because it touches on the big picture: China is becoming literally surrounded by enemies. A US-India-Taiwan-Japan-S. Korea alliance is scaring the crap out of them, and the base we're building in Kyrgizstan to their West is fueling the flames. A SCS conflict might well involve all of these nations... It is not just a China v. Vietnam, or China v. Phillippines, or even a China v. USN situation anymore. Things have changed, which brings me to... This situation is new. You are not going to find much on it yet, but I can guarantee you that defense think tanks throughout the country are pondering the possibilities right this minute. The strategic balance is not what it was 6 months ago; who would have thought that we would be selling India sea control platforms a year ago??? No one; it would have been unthinkable. Don't be surprised that there isn't much in the literature about it yet. You're operating on paradigms that went out the window six months ago. The literature you're using is obsolete.
Desert Scar: Our sonar and MAD capabilities are kept top secret, but it's my understanding that a 688I can detect any metallic object bigger than a bicycle 30 nm away, and it can track a minisub of the sort you mentioned up to 60nm away. That is, if they're paying attention... It has to be looking for it, or on alert. Sub infiltration is the most likely way to take out a carrier, though. But the USN has invested quite a bit of time and resources in learning how to defend against subs. They are very good at it.
If the carrier was anchored in a harbor, then sneaking up might be possible. If the carrier is on patrol, then the divers or minisub would have to launch from a larger vessel and that vessel would still need to be within the security perimeter and would have been noticed and tracked. Carriers don't need to be anchored in a hostile harbor to carry out the mission, so it is extremely difficult to make a minisub and diver attack feasible. Just send a sub to take out the carrier of a country that is at war with the US. Attacking it with your own carrier based planes is unnecessary. Mango
treeman, I'm not ignoring it. You said there was 'only one reason' for India to be in the SCS. I disputed that. I provided quotes that PROVE India was in the SCS as part of a multinational anti-piracy effort. It is also logical that India would use an increased naval presence in the area to increase their prestige and their sphere of influence. You have shown NOTHING (repeat) NOTHING that substantiates India has any intent on the Spratlys. As I pointed out many countries have energy problems but that doesn't mean they're going to get into a war with China over it. Japan won't. They're scared ****less of China. India would have an easier time invading Iran for their oil. In fact, most of the literature about Indian naval expansion points to an increased Persian Gulf presence to keep a continued oil supply safe and flowing. Also, you should note that there are no PROVEN reserves in the Spratlys. Do you think India is going to risk a war with China for that? Actually you said there was only ONE reason for them to expand their navy. So yes you did and do continue to deny piracy and influence as reasons for Indian naval expansion. So will China, so will Japan, so will the US, and Europe. Uh, so will everyone but the major oil producing states. None of that means they're gonna make a grab for the Spratlys, especially when they have NO claim in the area. There is more reason to believe India will do what everyone else will do for oil, pay for it. Ken Matthews, in his speech 'Shipping in the Asia-Pacific' at the The Strategic Importance of Seaborne Trade and Shipping Conference last year says... "There is another emerging issue affecting safety and shipping in the region, and that is piracy. There were 469 reported pirate attacks last year. This is a rise of 57% compared with 1999 figures and nearly four and half times higher when compared with 1991. The violence used in the attacks also rose to new levels, with 72 seafarers killed and 99 injured in 2000. Many of these attacks occur in this region and coordinated action is required to eliminate this scourge of the seas." Nalin Dewan writes in 'China's Influence in the SCS' that "In addition to arms running, drug trafficking, illegal migrants; piracy too is becoming a problem for international shipping in the region. The International Maritime Bureau has identified the Malacca and Singapore Straits, and the China Sea as the most prone in the world for piracy or piratical acts." John H. Noer from the Institute for National Strategic Studies writes in his analysis 'Keeping Sea Lines of Communication Open' that a military closure is not the only threat to open SLOCs. "The experience with the closure of the Suez Canal seems to indicate that such a disruption might increase freight rates by as much as 500 percent. Note that military or physical SLOC closure is not required. Suppose war-related uncertainty over the Spratlys caused maritime insurers to either increase rates or deny coverage in the region. Shippers might be motivated to reroute shipping via safer sea lanes. The factor that converts a localized maritime concern (SLOC blockage) to a global economic event (freight rate crisis c*m capacity shortfall) is the huge volume of shipping involved in the South China Sea." Piracy is much bigger than you are making it out to be. Where is your support for this? I've shown there is literature on WHY India was in the SCS. There is literature that supports India's acquisitions for use against Pakistan's Navy, and for them to expand influence in SE Asia and the Persian Gulf. Why are analysts so silly as to overlook your theory? Although the sales you mention are in process, India has been expanding their Navy for quite some time. Its hard to believe there has been NO speculation that would confirm your points. Because of the huge impact SLOC disruption would have on the US and world economy, the US would never sponser a grab for the Spratlys by India or Japan. It just won't happen. Noer continues: "The United States does not take sides in this dispute, but will not accept the disruption of trade passing through the South China Sea. The American position is based on direct national economic interest, as well as quasi-altruistic concern for the welfare of other nations. The United States has direct and immediate economic interests to protect in the region, as SLOC blockage could immediately and directly disrupt the U.S. economy." Hmmm. Convenient for you, wouldn't you say? India's naval buildup is not a new phenomenon. India's naval engagement in SE Asia and the SCS more specifically is not new. Speculation on energy consumption and dependency by China, India, Japan et al is not new. The reason there is no literature to support your view is that it isn't true. The US probably IS trying to use India to balance China in SE Asia, but there is no way they are going to allow them to start a conflict in the Spratlys.
HayesStreet: Before I start getting pissed off, I think that I should figure out why this conversation is heading the way it is. I mentioned a possible scenario in which India grabs the Spratleys, which I personally think is a plausible scenario considering stragec factors such as power projection force buildup by the Indians, and their coming energy crunch. You have latched on to that single scenario (which is one of many), and effectively turned it into my main point in this argument. It was not my main point, but I have fallen for the trap, and stand ridiculed (as is so often your method). I want to get back to the basics, because those fundamentals - which you do such a good job of ignoring - still stand. You ask why India would want another carrier (and two nuclear-capable attack subs). I say it is to counter China - that is the heart of my argument. I meant for the Spratleys to be an example, and a likely target all trends considered. You focused upon that, and put the main idea out to pasture... Your original argument was that the recent Indian naval acquisitions are directed at challenging our presence in the IO. I pointed out a couple of reasons why that is ludicrous (they couldn't challenge us even with them, and are now allies), so you moved over to a fixation on my personal belief that the Indians may well want to challenge the Chinese for the Spratleys down the road. Well, I say get back to the real issue: these acquisitions are meant to counter China, not the US. A few quotes from the Stratfor article Mango posted: …The items on New Delhi's shopping list show that India is focusing on its naval capabilities and is serious about becoming a nuclear power. Ultimately, it will be China -- not Pakistan -- that must confront new naval challenges from India… …However, India's acquisitions are not directed primarily at rival Pakistan, but rather at gaining control of sea lanes in the Indian Ocean and through the seas and straits of Southeast Asia. India's military buildup will threaten China, its main competitor for power in this region, especially as the purchases lay the groundwork for a strategic nuclear triad… …Instead, India's current purchases are designed to secure control over the Indian Ocean basin and enhance the challenge to China's navy to the east. Beijing and New Delhi are actively contesting control over the sea routes through Southeast Asia… …The Indian navy has recently launched forays into the South China Sea, accelerating its challenge to China. Acquisition of nuclear-powered vessels will step up this challenge, allowing the Indian navy to loiter in China's back yard… This all but predicts a naval conflict in the South China Sea. I happen to agree with that assessment (and Stratfor is pretty good at it). The facts are: 1) India is heading towards an energy crunch. No matter how many times you refuse to address that issue, it is inevitable, and it will be the deciding factor in their foreign policy pursuits down the road. They will have to address it. They may do it by securing the Persian Gulf, and that may turn out to be a steady and secure supply, but I have a feeling that that might not work out (mainly because of what we're going to do there, and the repercussions of that action). Long-term - maybe 15-25 years - the Spratleys might seem real attractive to them. And as I implied earlier (in a post you conveniently ignored), they may simply make moves that will stem Chinese dominance and allow someone else (I mentioned Vietnam and Brunei) to develop it and sell it. They do not necessarily have to take it, although I really would not rule out that possibility if I were you. Never say 'never' in the prediction business. 2) These new acquisitions are not meant to counter us; they are meant to counter Pakistan in the short run, and China in the long run. It will be at least 50 years before the Indian Navy can even consider going up against the US's CVBGs. These acquisitions are meant to threaten China in the long run. You can keep ignoring that fact if you want to, but it will not go away. 3) India and China are destined for another conflict. There can only be one #1 in South/Southeast Asia, and Indonesia ain't gonna be it. You've seen the map. Whoever controls the South China Sea controls all maritime trade in the region, not to mention the oil (and there are huge oil reserves there - don't try and tell me otherwise). China is actively looking at expanding south, and India is actively looking at expanding east (economic spheres, I mean). They are primary competitors in the region. History tells us that when two great powers compete economically in the same sphere - and especially when both great powers are militant nations with relative attitude problems - conflict ensues. There will be a conflict between China and India. As India's naval power is growing faster than China's, the probably location for that conflict is moved from the IO to the SCS. It will not happen tomorrow. It probably won't happen in the next 10 years. But it is inevitable. The US is just picking sides early.
Just for the record, India already had an aircraft carrier which they are replacing (I assume) with this Russian carrier. It was the INS Vikrant, bought partialy completed from the British after WWII. You can read about it on its website. Apparently, in the past the Indians found the ship usefull for, among other things, blockading supplies to Pakistan. There are, btw, other naval powers in the area. Thailand bought this brand new helecopter carrier within the last 10 years, and the Australians have a sizeable navy with aircraft carriers and submarines. Also, Here's an article from '98 specifically on the increased aquisition of aircraft carriers in SE Asia.
Ottomaton: Appreciate the links, but they are pretty much irrelevant in a discussion of actual carriers (CVs). The Thai ship is really a helo ship that can carry about 6 Harriers, but that is hardly a power projection ship. It is an ASW ship. The Japanese ships are Amphibs... When we're talking about real carriers, we mean ships that can carry a significant number of maritime fighter aircraft. The Gorshkov/Kiev barely even counts in that regard. Whereas the Russian Kuznetsov/Varyag can carry over 40, and an American carrier can carry upwards of 60+ (up to 90), the Gorshkov will likely carry far less (maybe 30+/-). Six is not enough to matter, when others in the area carry five times as many, although it is a good ship for any navy to have for the purposes of strike and ASW. It's not a sea control ship, though. In that area, the owners of that type of ship are limited to the USN, PLAN (and they still haven't got a working carrier), India, and the Brits and French when they feel like sending their lone carriers that way. Mainlt the USN, India, and China, though. Where did you hear about the Aussies getting a carrier? This would be the first I've heard of it. They have some smaller amphibs, but... no CVs.
The world's carriers, past and present: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm The Queen of the Sea:
C'mon treeman, don't get pissed off. We agree on so much (I believe this is the first disagreement we've had)! A little ridicule can go a long way! I agree that a lot of these acquisitions are to counter China's efforts at a blue water navy, and to expand India influence in SE Asia vis-a-vis China. I agree that these acquisitions are not a large threat to US forces (as long as they keep their ears open). I thought you should temper your assessment of WHY India has been in the SCS. They ARE there to challenge the Chinese, just not in a straight up conflict. Rather in a battle for relations with other SE Asian countries. My only point is this, if India is building up their navy so they can control the sealanes in the IO (as your quotes clearly point out), who are they taking control from? Its not China. However, I am a little hurt and disappointed that I took the time to find those quotes on the piracy problem (arrrrgh matey!) and you didn't even give em an honorable mention.
HayesStreet: I know... We normally agree. Glynch must be loving this. You're assuming that the buildup is meant to secure sea lanes in the IO. That's the old paradigm... Stop it!!! If they are aligned with us - as they are for the forseeable future, considering our mutual goals in the terror war and our mutual enemy, China, then their LOCs in the IO are already secure. The major change that has occurred with respect to the US-Indo-China relationship is that China has replaced us as the main Pak supplier, and we no are longer concerned with Indian expansion into the IO. We are sharing intel with the Indians now, we are running naval exercises with the IN now, and we are selling them sea control hardware. A year ago those items would have been totally unthinkable... The strategic balance in the region has totally changed. There are no longer three distinct power blocs vying for control of the IO; there are only two, and one hasn't even got an operational carrier yet. Since that balance has changed, and the Chinese can no longer hope to sortie a fleet into the IO, the whole shebang moves to the east... Into China's "territory". And you really need to stop trying to imply that the Indians are trying to challenge us. We would [B[not[/B] sell them sea control weapons if we even had the slightest inkling that they might turn them against us. And don't throw that "we've had many a US weapon turned back on us" argument at me; that is false. We have given many military support systems to many nations, but we balk at turning over hardware to nations that will use it against us. The story of Iraq using US weapons against us in 1991 is BS. We give nations like that financial and intel support, not hardware. And for at least the 4th time, they have nothing that can challenge an American CVBG, and they know that. It will be a very, very long time before they have that capability. I'm getting the impression that that's what you're really worried about - the Indians turning on us. It is not impossible, but it's unlikely unless we suddenly start selling the Paks F-16s again (the sanctions are gone, but we still aren't supplying the Paks with any hardware) or suddenly decide to side with China in their disputes. Unless either of those happen, we are still in the same strategic straits together, and they will have no reason to turn on us. Why are we in the Pacific/SE/E Asia in the first place? Because there are hostile entities there. If India is not hostile, then I don't give a s*it if they rule it, as long as they have open markets (which they have, relative to Chinese markets). And if they ever decide that they don't want to be friends? Well, that's what those 12 CVBGs are for...
Oops. You're right, I'm wrong. Apparently, Australia hasn't had any aircraft carriers since the early 80's. Further review, however, shows that India currently has a carrier in Service, the INS Viraat, which is home for 30 harriers plus support craft. The plan for the Gorkov is 24 Mig-29's. Ok, the Thai ship is kinda whimpy, but whata want? It's freaking Thailand. A quick perusal of the current # of aircraft carriers worldwide actualy makes them pretty impressive. Of course, that's just because everyone else is so weak. Evidence: ------------- China - no carriers, though they're working on it. France - 1 41,000 ton nuclear carrier England - 3 20,000 VSTOL carriers holding 8 harriers each Russia - (shocker) only 1 -- a 57,000 ton carrier for 50ish planes Italy - 1 26,000 ton VSTOL carrier and 1 13,000 ton VSTOL carrier Also neither Canada, Germany, or Israel have any sort of aircraft carrier. (For reference the US carriers @ Midway in WWII were all about 20,000 tons). Compare that to the US with 3 80,000 ton conventional carriers (2 Kitty Hawks, and 1 JFK) as well as 9 nuclear carriers; 8 97,000 ton Nimitz class ships and the 89,000 ton Enterprise, and we'd basically be able to go toe to toe with the rest of the world combined in the battle of the carriers. BTW, here's a link to a page that has the complete makeup of the Indian Navy. Also, the page Warships of the World is pretty complete.
Good homework Ottomaton! Slight add-in comments, though... Russia - no active carriers. Varyag is being sold to the Chinese, although its operability is in serious doubt... Probably be use as for research for an indigenous carrier system, as well as learning the operations and tactics of carrier management (they're about where we were 80 years ago on that)... Most of the Russian navy - with the exception of their SSBNs and some attack subs - has been rusting in station for over a decade now. UK - are you sure they still have 3? I'm pretty sure they don't... They have either 1 or 2 (memory fails on the status of the 2nd one, it might have been decommed). They carry more than 8 Harriers (re-Falklands). Italy - correct. France - correct also. Their carrier is actually the closest thing to a US supercarrier in the world, but even it isn't close... Even with Rafales. The three things that set US carriers apart from everyone else are 1) (most important) our skill with carrier management, 2) the sheer size and displacement - these are floating cities that carry full air wings, no one else can do that, and 3) the battlegroups that assist them; no one else can accompany their carriers with Tico/Burke classes of ships - ultimate protection factor. Excellent homework!
