Sunday, June 14, 2024

Cat and Mouse in the South China Sea

Since August of last year, I have consistently voiced my disappointment that the US Navy is looking to build more Arleigh Burke destroyers. Let me say a few things about this real quick.

First, I think ADM Roughead deserves a ton of credit for truncating the DDG-1000, building more is fiscally impossible towards reaching a larger fleet, and even though I think building a 4th one might be necessary to sustain the industry if we weren't moving towards build more DDG-51s, Roughead's decision is still the right one in my opinion. What he did to stop that program was truly brilliant.

With that said, I opposed more DDG-51s for two reasons. First, I think the money needs to be shifted towards a CG(X), perhaps a nuclear ship, that can carry a more sophisticated radar than what the DDG-51 can supposedly carry. I think the radar, not the weapon payload, is the primary objective of a CG(X) because we will need a more advanced radar to evolve ballistic missile defense from the existing limited system, and I think by not building more Burkes, the Navy puts some pressure on Lockheed Martin or Raytheon to come up with the best product for the best price. The current decision doesn't promote a competition in my opinion, and as the Navy knows full well (and you can read in Ronald O'Rourkes Destroyer report yourselves), the Burke simply doesn't have the power to evolve towards a better radar. When the discussion towards adding a generator involves replacing a helicopter and adding the generator to the hanger, that pretty much tells you what the DDG-51 platform is lacking in terms of growth.

For those who don't know, we have time to do this. AEGIS requires a massive (and expensive) upgrade to deal with the more modern ballistic missiles, particularly the ASBMs that have been discussed lately.

But the second reason is important too. I don't have much confidence in surface ASW right now, and quite honestly even if the DDG-51 might be very capable ASW platform, it is not the future of ASW and even the Navy will admit that. The Navy needs, more than anything other new program, an evolution in surface ship ASW programs and needs it sooner rather than later.

The news story from CNN that broke late on Friday is quite telling, indeed what is remarkable about it is how much we learn from a story where everything went silent almost immediately after it was reported. I decided I would wait at least 24 hours before discussing to see if there was any follow up. Nothing. Lets examine CNNs report.
In what a U.S. military official calls an "inadvertent encounter," a Chinese submarine hit an underwater sonar array being towed by the destroyer USS John McCain on Thursday.
The USS John S. McCain, left, anchored at the port of Incheon 40 km west of Seoul, Korea in March 2004.

The array was damaged, but the sub and the ship did not collide, the official said. A sonar array is a device towed behind a ship that listens and locates underwater sounds.

The incident occurred near Subic Bay off the coast of the Philippines.

The official, who declined to be named because the incident had not been made public, would not say whether the U.S. ship knew the submarine was that close to it.
There has been only one follow up report regarding the incident, and it comes not from the US Navy, but from the Philippines.
The Philippine Navy said on Saturday that the US military had not made any request to allow the entry of its warship in Philippine waters in light of reports that a sonar array carried by the US warship, USS John McCain, collided with a Chinese submarine off the Subic coast.

"We have no (military) exercise that would justify its presence here. And besides, if there will be vessel like that, we should have information about it," said Navy spokesman Lt. Col. Edgard Arevalo.

"The protocol that we are following is that any vessel, not necessarily US vessels, but all vessels from any country, would have to request passage from us if they want to enter our area of responsibility, especially if you are a warship. That’s a convention, a matter of courtesy," said Arevalo.
That article concludes by noting the incident could have occurred in international waters. If we assume for a moment the details as reported are accurate, then we actually learn a lot in this report.

Rewind to June 4th to the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. If you didn't see the hearing, you can watch the video here. Between 60:00 and 62:30 Senator McCain and Roughead have a small exchange about China, and Roughead notes an increase in naval activity. He goes on to respond to another question later in the hearing about Chinese submarine patrols, and ADM Roughead suggests the number of submarine patrols is up a lot in 2009.

Now we have a story about a PLAN submarine hitting the towed sonar of the USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) in Subic Bay, or near it. What does it mean.

First, if the USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) had its towed sonar deployed off the coast of the Philippines, then she was actively searching for a submarine. It is not normal behavior for the US Navy to tow around an expensive towed sonar in the littorals off a country with no submarines like the Philippines. That suggests the USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) knew there was a Chinese submarine in the area, then deployed the towed sonar, and it was at that time a PLAN submarine hit the sonar.

Second, if the PLAN submarine hit the towed array, it means the submarine was positioning itself behind the USS John S. McCain (DDG-56), meaning just like the USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) was hunting the submarine, the submarine was hunting the destroyer.

We don't know how good the initial detection of the submarine was by the destroyer. We don't know if this had been a wartime condition, whether the destroyer would have been able to pinpoint the submarine well enough to effectively fire first. What we do know is that had the destroyer not been in that position, the PLAN submarine was in a good position to fire on the destroyer, apparently positioning behind it away from its hull mounted sonar.

I am not even going to begin to speculate the activities of a PLA Navy submarine in Subic Bay, or around Subic Bay, although I don't think it is necessary to speculate either for one to surmise several reasons. In the end, I get the impression the Philippine Navy cares less about the USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and probably a bit more about the presence of a PLAN submarine.

I think it is very noteworthy that the reporting on this incident went silent after the initial report. This story is missing a lot of information, and it is very possible that even as I write this post more activity is taking place in that area. Given the comments by ADM Roughead back on June 4th, the repeated incidents that have occurred with the observation ships like USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23), and now this incident it is pretty clear a game of cat and mouse is quietly, silently, taking place in the Pacific beneath the sea.

Time to read up on PLA Navy Submarine activity if you aren't already familiar, it will likely shape several decisions in the QDR. Hopefully it shapes smart decisions towards the future, because in the future the South China Sea could get very crowded underwater.

No comments: