Chinese Maritime Strike Capabilities and the Fragility of U.S. Sea Lines of Communication Along the First Island Chain

On 30 March, the People’s Liberation Air Force conducted a long-range bomber exercise sortie into the northern half of the Luzon Strait. It isn’t clear from the media reporting whether the bombers flew further east into the open Western Pacific as part of the drill. The pictures accompanying the PLA’s press announcement on the exercise suggest H-6K bombers were employed—essentially a modernized version of the 1950s-era Soviet Tu-16 Badger. H-6K’s combat range is rumored to be approximately 1900 nautical miles. When one adds on an H-6K’s YJ-62 subsonic or YJ-12 supersonic ASCMs, the maximum anti-ship striking reach extends by roughly 180 or 250 nautical miles respectively.

In effect, and assuming an airfield relatively close to China’s coast, the PLAAF demonstrated a H-6K maritime strike at approximately 20% of the bomber’s notional maximum combat radius. This reach may seem underwhelming at first glance. However, if one were to draw that 20% as an arc extending outward along China’s entire coastline, then tack on the YJ-12’s assumed range, the entirety of the maritime approaches to Taiwan, the Ryukyus, the northern and western coasts of Luzon, the west coast of Kyushu, and the southern coast of South Korea lie inside the perimeter with plenty of standoff room.  20% can be more than enough.

It is quite possible that the effective range of those missiles against a given ship or surface grouping under wartime conditions would be significantly less than the advertised maximum range. Nevertheless, U.S. commanders would not only have to take the missiles’ maximum theoretical range into consideration when designing campaigns and operations, but would also have to account for the H-6Ks’ maximum theoretical range. Not to mention J-11 fighters carrying YJ-12s. Rest assured that these kinds of risk calculations are very much on the mind of U.S. treaty allies in the region.

The U.S. Navy has not faced an analogous “blue water” air threat since the Cold War days of Bears, Badgers, and Backfires. These Soviet bombers were not tasked with pressuring the trans-Atlantic flow of reinforcements and supplies to Western Europe, however (and Badger couldn’t reach far enough south in any event). Nor were there Soviet fighters capable of escorting them all the way out to those sea lanes. The principal theoretical threat to these flows was therefore Soviet submarines (even though that really wasn’t their primary mission either), which in turn drove design requirements for convoy escorts like the Knox and Perry-class frigates.

As alluded to above, Western Pacific geography presents a completely different story. Let’s use the Ryukyus as an example. It is highly desirable to deploy U.S. air and missile defense systems, Japanese anti-ship cruise missile batteries, and U.S. and Japanese fighters capable of dispersed operations from ad hoc airfields to these islands in order to pressure Chinese air and naval surface forces’ wartime abilities to break out into the Western Pacific. These systems are also highly important to complicating PLA air and naval surface operations within the East China Sea, as well as defending the Ryukyus from direct PLA strikes or expeditionary assaults. They might contribute significantly to bogging down a Chinese war-opening offensive long enough to prevent a fait accompli under certain circumstances.

How, though, will these forces be logistically sustained if PLAAF fighters can use their numerical superiority to disrupt or deny U.S. airlift efforts, and the striking reach of its H-6Ks and J-11s to pressure U.S. sealift efforts? How will transport aircraft and convoyed shipping be able to unload their cargoes if the requisite airfields and seaports have been subjected to debilitating air and missile bombardments (or mine-laying), or if PLA forces can direct fires against these facilities on short notice? Now let’s take this one step further: how will the U.S. and Japan protect the flow of basic economic sustenance to the islands’ civilian populations under such conditions? Also bear in mind that unlike the Cold War-era Soviet maritime bomber threat, H-6Ks can be escorted thousands of miles out to sea by J-11s (and many other PLAAF fighters for overwater missions closer to home), thereby providing a modicum of protection from U.S. and Japanese fighters. Now factor PLAN submarine capabilities into the mix. The difficulty of these challenges should be apparent. What’s more, the same challenges would apply in conflicts involving the Philippines, South Korea, and of course Taiwan.

This is why I say land-based forces positioned along the First Island Chain can “pressure” PLAAF and PLAN breakouts through the First Island Chain, not block them altogether. “Pressuring” them is very useful in that it can support friendly naval forces and convoys operating in the open ocean by providing some warning of an outbound raid as well as knocking out some of the raiders during both the outbound and inbound legs. It also would entice China to expend a disproportionate effort trying to locate and suppress the ‘gatekeepers’ early in a major war. Similar logic applies to the use of such forces for pressuring Chinese use of the East or South China Seas in the vicinity of allied islands, including the direct defense of the islands themselves.

As I’ve noted before, unless the maritime lines of communication to these islands are kept open, the maritime denial forces on them essentially become “wasting assets” if not sacrificial speedbumps. Yes, ammunition and food can be stockpiled to allow such forces to hold out for protracted periods—if such a foresighted step is taken during peacetime. And even if it is, the stockpile will only last for a finite period. Munitions expenditures will likely be higher than anticipated in peacetime planning. There will be combat losses and a corresponding need (or at least desire) to funnel in replacements. Can replenishment and reinforcement be done with confidence under the circumstances I’ve outlined?

Nor does any of this even begin to cover the islands’ populations’ needs for basic staples like food, medical supplies, fuel, whatever external trade can be sustained, and so on. Imagine the political pressures upon an embattled ally’s government—and thereby upon U.S. political leadership—to break a Chinese maritime siege. Imagine the political and strategic consequences if the siege could not be broken. This could, in fact, be a principal Chinese objective in a notional conflict of limited aims.

Such issues are seldom raised in public proposals of or commentaries on strategic concepts for deterring—and if necessary waging—a war against Chinese aggression in East Asia. There are a few indications that this fog may be lifting, though. I certainly hope that’s the case, as any strategic concept for East Asia that doesn’t address these questions is seriously incomplete.

It’s important to keep in mind that the challenges I’ve described are hardly insurmountable. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of measures that could contribute towards solutions:

• Contingency plans could emphasize offensive and defensive operations aimed at protecting critical maritime lines of communication to allied territories and forward forces.

•  Contingency plans could also incorporate entire sets of sequential or parallel operations in the physical, electromagnetic, cyber, and space domains to temporarily if not permanently degrade the surveillance-reconnaissance apparatus that PLA maritime strike aircraft, submarines, surface groups, and land-based missiles depend upon for over-the-horizon targeting cues.

• Combined arms operating concepts and tactics could be developed for screening convoys from air and submarine attack using existing (or forthcoming) platforms and systems.

• New logistics concepts for using existing or forthcoming transport platforms to keep dispersed forces supplied from afar when large airfields and seaports are unavailable.

• Medium-range air defense missiles could be added to the forthcoming LCS-derived frigate so that it could perform convoy escort in high air threat environments.

• A long-legged large weapons payload fighter (F/A-XX?) and a wide-area anti-submarine aircraft could be added to the future carrier air wing.

Bottom line: land-based maritime denial forces in the First Island Chain can do many things that complement naval battleforces at the campaign-level. They cannot substitute for them. 

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the official positions of Systems Planning and Analysis, and to the author’s knowledge do not reflect the policies or positions of the U.S. Department of Defense, any U.S. armed service, or any other U.S. Government agency.