Roughead on How to Fight China: Submarines and ... Say What?

One of the more interesting exchanges in Thursday's testimony between the Navy and the House Armed Services Committee was in responses to questioning regarding China. Look, I want to like Admiral Roughead, but this discussion with Duncan Hunter, who we are not a fan of, doesn't inspire much confidence. From Bill Gertz: Inside the Ring.

Asked whether China's military buildup has prompted planning for more submarines, more missiles and more aircraft, Adm. Roughead said, "yes, sir."

This is an admission the primary reason the Navy is building a larger submarine force is to counter the threats of China. I'm sure everyone assumed as much, but it is refreshing to see it stated by the CNO. We appreciate straight talk in regards to China, and this qualifies... at least right up until he came up with this example.

The four-star admiral said one example is the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship that is made for fighting near coasts but also is "capable of running and providing enhanced [anti-submarine warfare] capability to our more traditional battle formations, our expeditionary strike groups and carrier strike groups."

The new ship is "a function of the need that we see for anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare and anti-surface warfare capability in areas where we see the threat evolving," he said, "to include China."

This type of stuff just drives us crazy. Raise your hand if you want to go to war with China in the Littoral Combat Ship. As Ben Stein would say, Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

It is intellectually dishonest to tell Congress that the Navy is going to deploy the Littoral Combat Ship against China, who has one of it not the largest air forces in the world. Yes, ASW and MIW is important, but how realistic is MIW during a shooting war off the coast of the worlds largest air force? Not very.

Unfortunately all Roughead's answer proves is that the Navy is still inclined to believe every platform is able to perform every mission, sort of how we have heard that Tomahawk cruise missiles can act as UAVs and the DDG-1000 will be a terrific weapon against terrorists.

This is why Mine Warfare is the bastard child of the Navy. Unless we come to find in the future the Navy has a massive mine warfare capability able to deployed from submarines, who would be able to neutralize mines during a shooting war even close to shore areas where an air force can operate, we remain unimpressed.

Is a submarine approach to China smart? Hell Yes, smarter than other proposals by a lot. Is the Littoral Combat Ship is a realistic ASW or MIW platform in a shooting war with China? Maybe as an escort for HVUs 1000 miles from China, but we don't see the LCS zooming ahead of the strike force to neutralize minefields as has been proposed in the past. Did the Navy really buy into RANDs report of that future LCS capability? Sounds like it.

Mike's ideas look smarter and smarter everyday with this type of talk from the CNO, which pains me to say since I often disagree with his ideas.