US Deploys Carrier Strike Group, US Air Force to Western Pacific

It is either remarkable planning or interesting timing, perhaps both, that the US Navy deploys the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group to the Western Pacific on Tuesday. I tend to believe the ship was planned to deploy after Thanksgiving, but when I look at the details of the deployment schedule I also tend to believe this looks like a surge deployment a few weeks early.

What I find interesting is how this, as reported by Navy Times, is very unusual:

The three surface ships will depart Naval Station San Diego on Tuesday and join Vinson for a Composite Training Unit Exercise, or COMPTUEX, off the Southern California coast before heading west, Hicks said.

To give you an example how unusual it is for an aircraft carrier to put to sea, conduct COMPTUEX, and deploy all in a single motion I cannot find an example of this actually happening since the Navy deployed carriers bound for the Iraq War in 2003. Wikipedia actually has a fairly decent description of COMPUTEX:

COMPTUEX, or Composite Training Unit Exercise, is a rehearsal each US Navy Carrier Battle Group performs before departing for deployment. COMPUTEX is normally conducted during a two-week to three-week period six to eight weeks before deployment. Successfully completion of COMTPUEX certifies the carrier and its air wing as qualified for open ocean operations. COMPTUEX consists of an 18 day schedule of even driven exercise which the follows with an 3 day Final Battle Problem. It's conducted and directed by the training carrier group commander and the focus is to bring together the carrier and it's air wing as a working team that can operate in a combat environment, as well as integrating with other assets of the battle group.

When you think about it, what is being implied, but not explicitly stated, is that the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and escorts will be conducting their rehearsals in transit in the general direction of North Korea.

Let me just say - if we are thinking strategically, I really like this plan. There is no guarantee we are thinking strategically.

The Chess Match

In case you have not seen it, the situation in South Korea took an interesting twist on Monday with a public address by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Two items stuck out in the speech worth considering. The first is a message to the international community regarding the current mood in the South Korean government regarding the last decade of 'all carrot, no stick' diplomacy.

"For the past two decades, we’ve made efforts to resolve the nuclear issue through dialogue and cooperation. But the reality is that North Korea doesn’t stop provocative acts and is still developing nuclear weapons."

Lee hinted at adopting a tougher stance on Pyongyang, saying he will work closely with the international community to seek punitive action against its behavior.

"It’s time to act, rather than speak," he said.

And then the President set expectations for China.

"Only a few meters away from where shells landed, there was a school where classes were going on. I am outraged by the ruthlessness of the North Korean regime, which is indifferent to the lives of little children."

The address came one day after China proposed urgent talks among nuclear envoys from the six nations engaged in the stalled denuclearization dialogue to discuss the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Seoul made it clear that it was meaningless to resume the talks without addressing North Korea’s belligerent acts.

"The first thing to do is to hold North Korea responsible for its recent attacks and secure its commitment to maintaining peace," said senior presidential secretary for public relations Hong Sang-pyo.

The crazy dictator act by North Korea no longer appears tolerable, and likely for good reason. For at least the last decade efforts have repeatedly approached North Korea with an all carrot, no stick diplomatic effort, as that has been the standing US policy during military activities in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. What I see happening here is a bit of movement in the direction that says North Korea may need to relearn a few lessons regarding the ability of South Korea and the United States to damage North Korea. Is it a risky move? Absolutely, but no less risky than the moves the North Korean regime has been making in overt military actions against South Korea for domestic political purposes.

With the ball firmly placed in China's court, we see the next bounce.

Chairman of North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly Choe Thae Bok arrived from Pyongyang, breezing past reporters at Beijing's Capital Airport without comment.

Choe, who concurrently serves as a ruling Workers' Party secretary, was expected to meet top Chinese communist party officials and discuss last week's artillery barrage, the North's nuclear program and the U.S.-South Korean military drills, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

Choe leaves on Saturday, suggesting that if China doesn't come out in support of North Korea tomorrow, then China won't make a statement about the situation on the Korean Peninsula until Saturday. Ignoring the suggestions coming out as a result of Wikileaks, this is an enormously complicated problem for China and represents a turning point - one way or the other.

The rest of the news headlines today provides enough backdrop to understand how tensions are rising:

North Korea vows to step up uranium enrichment amid rising concerns
South Korean military to toughen rules of engagement with North Korea

Are We Thinking Strategically?

Whether by sheer luck or incredible planning, the deployment of the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group comes at a remarkable time. The USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), which transited from the east coast to the west coast earlier this year, oh with an important stop in Haiti if you recall, is making her first major overseas deployment since her 3 year nuclear refueling and significant systems upgrade. As nuclear powered aircraft carriers go, she is one of the most modern and prepared in the US inventory. Escorting the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) is the also recently upgraded and super modernized USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), which might be the most modernized and powerful surface combatant on the planet today, plus the USS Stockdale (DDG 106) and USS Gridley (DDG 101) who combined have only been commissioned for 5 years and 1 month.

If there was ever such a thing as a United States Carrier Strike Group with a new car smell, this is it! I suspect this force will be picking up a BMD capable ship as it passes Pearl Harbor (USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) maybe?).

So if I am some North Korean intel analyst looking at this - what am I looking at?

I see this rather enormous George Washington (CVN 73) Carrier Strike Group escorted by a rather large and capable number of US and South Korean Navy warships exercising in my front lawn. I am also observing this ultra modern Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group deploying from the US west coast, heading my way under what looks to be a completely unique deployment schedule that just might be coming quickly specifically because of me.

Oh btw, more than half the Japanese fleet is either at sea or on high readiness, and the US Air Force is quietly positioning capabilities that will really hurt if the shooting happens. In the context of the South Korean Presidents speech, I might be a little concerned.

As I look at this, I see an opportunity for the US and allies to increase the pressure and make moves that put a bit of fear back into the North Koreans for a change. I do not think it would be a bad thing for the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) to go dark and start heading towards the strait. I can think of some interesting places for that Carrier Strike Group to pop up all of a sudden to make a strategic announcement of presence. It seems to me that the more pressure the North Koreans feel right now, the more China is empowered in influencing North Korea. China has let editorials critical of North Korea run in the daily papers all week - something we never saw following the Cheonan incident.

There is an opportunity here - one that makes China a partner while also allowing us to stand strong with South Korea. How does it come together? I see many possibilities, and if I was writing the script I would start writing it with this deployment of the Carl Vinson CSG - with its unique ships and unique deployment pattern, and perhaps a bit of unique strategic communication to go a long with it aimed at the North Koreans.

Latest Events - Korean Peninsula

Several noteworthy events took place surrounding Korean Peninsula tensions over the last 24 hours. Reuters discusses the first two issues in this report.

"We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval," China's Foreign Ministry said in an online response to a question regarding China's position on the George Washington participating in joint naval exercises.

This is the first reaction to the US moving the USS George Washington (CVN 73) into the Yellow Sea. As far as China is concerned, they believe no one should be allowed to operate a warship, much less an aircraft carrier, within their exclusive economic zone. There is no international law that China bases their political protest on, as maritime boundary definitions in the UNCLOS are defined as:

• Coastal waters—the zone extending 3 nm. from the baseline
• Territorial sea—the zone extending 12 nm. from the baseline
• Contiguous zone—the area extending 24 nm. from the baseline
• Exclusive Economic Zone—the area extending 200 nm. from the baseline except when the space between two countries is less than 400 nm

China's criticism was to be expected, and one reason why I believe the Obama administration has taken this course of action. Territorial sea only extends 12 nm, and only if US Navy forces move within the territorial waters of China would there be any violation of international law. The Reuters report also discusses the latest statement by North Korea:

"The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war due to the reckless plan of those trigger-happy elements to stage again war exercises targeted against the (North)," the North's official KCNA news agency said.

Shortly after the statement, the North Korean military held an exercise near Yeonpyeong island firing artillery at least twice over a period of two and half hours. This article in the New York Times has the details, and nice photo of how clearly one can see the smoke from the artillery from Yeonpyeong island.

The press has been given access to Yeonpyeong island to see the damage, and as one might imagine the pictures on TV and online just piles on the political pressure for the government to act. It is an unfortunate situation, because the new Defense Minister is in a difficult place regarding how to respond to any new attacks after having just seen the old Defense Minister resign for not retaliating forceful enough. What does that mean next time the North tries another limited skirmish on the border?

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Asian markets are nervous.

South Korea's Kospi dropped 1.3%, Japan's Nikkei Stock Average shed 0.4%, Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index fell 0.8% and China's Shanghai Composite declined 0.9%. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 edged up 0.1%. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were down 75 points in screen trade.

If I am to be a selfish American, I would note that the Asian concerns of war combined with the European concerns of debt certainly gives investors in the global economy a lot to think about. The consequences of that concern has been a nice little bump for the dollar. It is remarkable how quickly signs of war between nations in either Asia or the Middle East usually bounces US currency positively, a reminder that the gold standard was replaced with the F-16 standard over 30 years ago. I say this as a key reminder. Should China decide to start selling off their holdings in Treasuries, it is important to remember that means someone else is buying. Worth thinking about.

The Navy exercise between the US and South Korea that begins Sunday is a short term action, but long term actions are necessary. What the Cheonan and now this latest incident has highlighted is a broad flaw in US policy, and while everyone would love to see a diplomatic solution to all of these problems, the patience of the region with the US governments ineffective diplomatic solutions for North Korea has all but expired. Both South Korea and North Korea have stopped working with the Red Cross, which was the last link the two countries had before this latest incident.

There is a realization in Washington, DC that future North Korean attacks will make a future US policy response that 'calls for restraint and emphasizes diplomacy' a failure of US obligations to partners like Japan and South Korea. This realization has become a serious political problem for the White House. It will be interesting to see how the President handles this very serious problem, particularly given how forceful South Korea is likely to be to the next North Korean attack, not to mention how skeptical Japan has become of us given our repeated inadequacies dealing with North Korea. It will also be interesting if and how the media reports on this very serious foreign policy problem facing the Obama administration - one he can't exactly kick down the road.

I suspect the administration is looking for a policy action akin to the "Stuxnet option" someone deployed against Iran. By that I mean the US would love to be able to deploy an untraceable damaging attack that disrupts North Korean capabilities in an indirect way, and after the fact everyone believes it was done by the US although no one has the proof necessary to prove it.

One final Navy note - don't be surprised if - just as the USS George Washington (CVN 73) begins exercising with the South Korean Navy in the Yellow Sea, a second US carrier battle group quietly enters the western Pacific.

President Reponds With Modern Gunboat Diplomacy

The President of the United States, no matter who it is, never gets to make easy choices in foreign policy. The recent clash between North and South Korea presents nothing but very tough choices. While the Army is fighting two wars on land, the Navy is being called to the northwest Pacific ocean to keep the peace. Naval power has been doing exactly this for nations going back thousands of years, but that doesn't make the task any easier this time.

First, let me state up front that I am concerned things are more serious than our nations political leaders want to admit. We may be on the brink of renewed hostilities on the Korean Peninsula, but neither the administration nor the media are projecting that level of concern. That is likely part of the political calculation that came with the decision for this specific action, but not warning the public of the gravity of the situation may not have been a good decision. Likely driven by a down economy and with the intent not to spook the market, it seems pretty clear to me the administration is attempting to portrait a mood of calm in this situation. That is probably wise, but if things do not go as planned over the next week or so the result will be a political catastrophe for the United States.

As the news outlets are starting to report, the United States is exercising a bit of gunboat diplomacy by sending a remarkably well armed naval task force into the Yellow Sea. The audience here is China, and this move will piss them off big time, thus must be intended to humiliate Chinese leadership. The most likely outcome here is 2 billion pissed off Chinese. That makes our policy an interesting approach, and potentially smarter than it sounds.

In part this is a game of chicken with the childish North Korean leadership that acts out in temper tantrums when they want something - and right now North Korea wants many things. In part though, this is also a game of chicken with daddy. China has repeatedly warned the US of consequences for moving an aircraft carrier into the Yellow sea, and many Generals have made threats including advocacy in editorials that China should strike with military power should the United States move a carrier into the Yellow Sea. It is one thing to play chicken with a spoiled brat, and quite another to play chicken with big daddy.

By making this move, we are changing the issue from one of a skirmish to one of an out of control belligerent state in need of a spanking, and we are focusing the worlds attention towards China demanding they wield the paddle. As a big picture move, which means a policy reaction to the skirmish that also includes the newly disclosed uranium nuclear facility as part of the problem, China is being accused and held accountable for all belligerence activities of North Korea. The President is decided upon a risky but otherwise bold response in the face of this belligerence. Is it smart or dumb? Depends on the results...

It is possible the reason the naval exercise were put off until Sunday is to give China time to condemn North Korean aggression, thus take the lead and reduce the need to move the GW into the Yellow Sea. Will China join the international community and condemn North Korea? Unlikely, however I wouldn't rule it out, and I would imagine there must be a block inside Chinese leadership that is advocating this. 2010 has been a brutal year for Chinese prestige and the recent skirmish between North and South Korea appears poised to further discredit China with their neighbors in the region. I tend to think the Obama administration hasn't miscalculated our understanding regarding the size of the Chinese egos involved in this situation, rather I just don't believe President Obama cares anymore if the PRC takes an ego bruise for their position. Said another way, President Obama is thinking China might act responsibly, allowing him to offload some of the worlds concern for responsibility on Chinese leadership. From what I have seen watching China's leadership, I don't see it happening.

Moving the George Washington Carrier Strike Group into the Yellow Sea is bold, and carries a great deal of risk. This move will piss of Chinese leadership, and that will insure plenty of propaganda that enrages China's population. I don't expect China to attack the US Navy, but I do expect China to respond in a serious and potentially harsh way. The US is making a safe bet that nothing will happen and no one will be foolish enough to attack the US and South Korean naval forces. It is a good bet, but it is still a bet - and anyone who bets knows the rule: you can lose any bet.

I also believe we are making a move not unlike March 1996 when then President Clinton ordered the Nimitz and Independence carrier battle groups to sail through the Taiwan Strait. The consequence of that move was a vow by China of "never again," a vow we are actually about to challenge in a different region off China's coast. The unintended consequence of Clinton's policy decision has been the most remarkable modernization in human history of the worlds largest Army, Navy, and Air Force. In less than 14 years, China's military has essentially jumped 2 generations of combat capability. That is a remarkable pace, and highlights how no one can predict what reaction will come from moving the GW into the Yellow Sea.

Do you know any US Korean War veterans? I do, and unfortunately they are now old men whose sage wisdom and advice is only heard by those willing to hear it. South Korea is generations removed from the Korean War, and there is a lot of political pressure for the government to take action. I think this means the US must make a bold statement like moving the US Navy in force into the Yellow Sea, because we need to redirect attention politically to assist President Lee Myung-Bak. If you don't believe that, then you need to go read what today's South Korean news and comment sites are saying. Again, as we have discussed on the blog for years - preventing war with an extended show of force is one way Naval power can be used in crisis, and naval power can do many things politically for any nation with a strong Navy.

Most US Presidents have at one point or another found the nation in a situation where the Navy is asked to move well forward, show the flag, and keep the peace. This is a function of naval power that US Navy officers and sailors are trained to do, and a function of military power the US military thinks about all the time, and practices for. Obama has called for a form of gunboat diplomacy to redirect the political focus and walk both sides of the Korean Peninsula back from the brink of war. Gunboat diplomacy takes its form and function unique to its political purpose for the situation. Gunboat diplomacy is always distinct to time and place, and even in the 21st century remains a policy of force intended to deter other nations from exercising the violent use of military power.

Will it work? President Obama is betting it will. The Obama administration policy is to follow South Korea's lead politically but position the US to lead militarily with a show of force. The political signal is to maintain the peace, but respond with strength. That means South Korea will update rules of engagement, reinforce military positions in vulnerable areas, and ask for the US for assistance in pressuring China into reigning in North Korean belligerence. I commend the President for being bold and essentially holding China accountable for their proxy state. This is a bold move. Time and events will decide whether fortune favors the bold, or if our risk calculations are flawed.

Yeonpyeong - Navy Notes 24 Hours Later

As of this post it has been 24 hours since the artillery shells were fired by North Korea onto the island of Yeonpyeong. Noteworthy developments:

The USS George Washington (CVN 73) and escorts have deployed from Japan. Interesting to note, there were some Japanese Navy vessels deployed over the last 24 hours as well. As you might imagine, the ports in South Korea are largely empty as a great deal of the South Korean Navy has put to sea.

There are no solid numbers, but some news organizations are reporting well over 50 major warships from the United States, Japan, and South Korea currently moving towards the maritime regions surrounding the Korean Peninsula. This would constitute the largest assembly of international naval firefare since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I'm sure China is pleased to see this massive armada on their lawn.

Asahi Shimbun (Japanese media) is now reporting there were 5 North Korean Mig-23s seen on the North Korean side of the border just prior to artillery fire began, and South Korea was tracking them on the South Korean side with F-15s. Neither the Migs nor F-15s apparently crossed their respective border, nor were involved in the battle at Yeonpyeong island.

There appear to be a few security holes somewhere in the US National Security information loop, because very credible sources have reported the first US ISR on the scene over Yeonpyeong was UAVs launched from the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23). While I appreciate the idea that leaking submarine activity might be part of a well orchestrated information campaign against North Korea (North Korea couldn't detect the USS Jimmy Carter short of using a minefield, even if they used every sonar in their entire inventory), I don't think that is actually the reason for the leak.

Inside the loop, information has become nearly impossible as things have gone dark across the Pacific all the way to Diego Garcia, but from talking to civilians today there was a lot of praise for PACOM and specifically ADM Willard, who according to my sources was the first major player among all the players engaged in the events unfolding. There was also quite a bit of good things said all the way around about 7th Fleet today.

The background for the photo in this blog post can be found here.

I do not rule out the use of military power in response to this attack, but do not expect it. If so it will come from South Korea. I think the US will do exactly what they did following the Cheonan attack - shift the pressure China. I think it is pretty clear the inability of China to address North Korean following the Cheonan incident cost China considerable credibility in the region this year. In this case, things are less ambiguous in the public, so China will either step up or be discredited by virtually every nation in the region as irresponsible and unworthy of being a regional leader.

The problem with this approach is the US could turn this into a US-China political game, and South Korea may not see that approach as being in their best interest. I don't think that means they take military action, but there were South Korean homes burning on TV from a military attack from the North all day yesterday. Doing nothing in the eyes of the public is less risky a political response as doing something, although we won't know the cost of doing nothing until the markets close.

As always, the North might do something stupid. One would think not, but I wouldn't have believed they would shell a neighborhood either had you asked me yesterday. Apparently they really will do anything given the time and space - and that's the tough issue. For the record, the crop this year in North Korea was reported to be a disaster, so North Korea is in need of food aid this winter.

The Navy View: Korean Peninsula

For those watching events in on the Korean Peninsula, as of yesterday the USS George Washington (CVN 73) was in port, but that ship can get to sea very quickly and may already have sailed.

Also noteworthy, the forward deployed MEU, the Essex ARG, was around Okinawa yesterday. The Peleliu ARG is in the Philippines currently on their way home from deployment.

Should hostilities break out on a larger scale, the US Navy could surge both the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and the USS Nimitz (68) very quickly. Both ships have conducted training off the west coast this month. At 25 knots it would take less than 10 days before the ships arrived ready for battle.

Already at sea is USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), where both carriers are currently supporting war operations in Afghanistan. These carriers are about 9 days away, or less, depending upon course and speed - starting when they are ordered to move.

While they do not surface often, when the Ohio SSGNs do surface, they tend to do so in the waters near South Korea.

The US Navy maintains a continuous presence in the region, and in different forms is already there.

Underwater Deterrence

I thought this was the most interesting development last week in the Pacific. From the AP.

Russia's Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed Defense Ministry official as saying Russia will sell Vietnam six diesel-electric "Project 636" Varshavyanka submarines for a total of $2 billion. The submarines are also known by their NATO nickname, "Kilos."

A quick check around the region.

Vietnam orders 6 Kilo class submarines.
Indonesia purchased 2 submarines from Russia earlier this year.
Malaysia received the first of 2 submarines from France earlier this year.
South Korea ordered 6 more U-214s earlier this year.

Then you have Japan in their always impressive submarine program and Australia already looking into Collins class replacements. At the same time, India is going nuclear with their submarine force.

In other words, the platform at sea of choice to deter China is the submarine. Not surprising, but 2009 was the year one could point to that made it official.

On "Faces to Places"

I had quite a bit of feedback today about the salvos Bryan and I traded in the comments of his post yesterday. In particular, Bryan said something that triggered all kind of interesting commentary, and brought the phrase "Faces to Places" in my Inbox several times.

I was off doing things Sailors do when John Morgan called to tell me I was going to come write strategy. How did this happen? Well, Jim Stavridis recommended me--just like he recommended me nine years earlier to the CNO to be his speechwriter, and just as he and Walsh and Pandolfe and Morgan and others like them have always done and continue to do.

Bryan in this example is putting "Faces to Places," putting the right guy in the right place at the right time for the right job. His record and reputation speaks to what a smart move those leaders made in putting him in that position. The question is whether this is the exception or the norm? I don't know, for lateral movements in an organization, I could see where it could be the norm. For promotions though, I wonder if it is the exception? I think there is a discussion lingering in the air on that topic.

While this rarely used phrase, or perhaps buzzword, kept popping up today in my email I was looking at the HA/DR activities of 7th Fleet, and noted Rear Admiral Richard B. Landolt appears to be who is running the show. I had never heard of him before today, and had never read Rear Admiral Richard B. Landolt's biography before today either, but ever since I did I have not been able to shake this phrase "Faces to Places" from my mind. Check this out...

Rear Admiral Richard B. Landolt received his commission via NROTC at the University of Florida where he earned his bachelor's of Arts in Political Science.

He has served at sea aboard USS Morton (DD 948), USS Niagara Falls (AFS 3), USS Cayuga (LST 1186) and USS Roanoke (AOR 7). He commanded USS Ardent (MCM 12), forwarded deployed to Manama, Bahrain, USS Gladiator (MCM 11) and USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) forwarded deployed in Sasebo, Japan. His Major command tour was of Amphibious Squadron 11, also in Sasebo, Japan.

Landolt served two tours on the staff of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a staff planner and subsequently as the executive assistant for Commander, Naval Forces Europe and Joint Forces Command, Naples Italy.

His shore duties include tours at the Bureau of Naval Personnel as head of surface placement (Pers-413) and as a federal executive fellow at the Rand Corporation where he studied NATO policy and Asian Affairs. On the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel (N00K) staff he served as the assistant for long range plans.

He’s been a senior fellow on the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group (SSG XXIV), and deputy director, Expeditionary Warfare Division (N85B) on the Navy Staff.

He assumed duties as commander, Amphibious Force 7th Fleet in Okinawa, Japan in June of 2008.

A graduate of the Naval Postgraduate School, U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and the Armed Forces Staff College, Landolt also holds a Master’s degree in Telecommunications Systems Management.

Are you kidding me? It is almost as if this mans entire career has been building towards executing at the strategic level a large scale, regional wide humanitarian assistance and disaster response operation, and now that this almost impossible scenario of multiple massive natural disasters across a vast region has arrived, the Navy has the right guy is in the right place at the right time with the right resources?

Pardon my Persian, but that is pretty damn impressive!

7th Fleet Focus: Natural Disaster... Again, and Again...

Keep an eye on this. 7th Fleet has its hands full with natural disasters this week. Not only have we seen 2 tsunamis, one in American Samoa no less (which should be the top priority), but we have already seen one Typhoon hit the Philippines this week... and now a Super-Typhoon is inbound.

The Philippines declared a national “state of calamity” as Typhoon Parma headed for Luzon, where recovery efforts continue six days after Tropical Storm Ketsana devastated Manila and its surroundings, leaving 293 people dead.

Authorities began moving people from provinces north and southeast of Manila into shelters, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro said in an interview on ABS-CBN television. The nationwide state of calamity gives the government the power to peg the price of basic goods.

Parma’s eye was 254 kilometers (158 miles) northeast of the city of Daet on Luzon at 2 p.m. Manila time today, the U.S. Navy Joint Typhoon Warning Center said. The typhoon is forecast to make landfall after 8 a.m. tomorrow.

I expect we will see the Reagan CSG pop up right after the Super-Typhoon passes as "Johnny on the spot" ready to help. The Navy blogosphere is trying to nail down some blogger roundtables with folks in the Pacific dealing with the natural disaster situations in the Pacific, hopefully something comes of it.

Expect a lot of discussion on this topic over the next week. We have elevated HA/DR as a core emphasis of strategy, and the anniversary of CS-21 is almost here - a perfect opportunity to evaluate HA/DR's new emphasis. We see natural disasters in places like the far southeast of 7th Fleets AOR and the far southwest of 7th Fleets AOR, and 2 major typhoons in a row now hitting the Philippines, right in the middle of 7th Fleets AOR.

The Pacific is gigantic, that is a lot of range to cover and it is very hard for ships to do it quickly. This is the real life scenario of multiple unlikely natural disasters hitting the same region again and again and again, all resulting in massive damage and high causalities. They used to call wargames and simulations of this scenario unrealistic... can't say that anymore.

This Super-Typhoon about to hit the Philippines can have geopolitical ramifications; weather often does. We have seen how weather influences piracy, but if you recall, it was the Tsunami of 2004 that pretty much wiped out all the piracy in the Strait of Malacca in 2004, and piracy at that time was as bad as Somalia was last fall.

Oh, and remember all that Chinese naval power that was supposed to be ready to respond to Natural Disasters? It is nowhere to be found. Watch the Pacific news commentary, a lot of people have begun taking notice, and are mentioning it. We may yet see it though, should this Super Typhoon slam into China...

And there is another Super Typhoon forming behind this one...

7th Fleet Focus: On Power

Globally deployed, globally present. This is another example how naval power is an instrument of national power in the 21st century.

Following the aftermath of Super Typhoon Choi-Wan, USNS Alan Shepard (T-AKE 3) and two MH-60S helicopters from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 25 arrived on station in the early morning hours of Sept. 17 to provide humanitarian support to residents of Alamagan and Agrihan.

The islands, part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), are approximately 146 nautical miles north of Saipan.

At the request of the Governor of Saipan, Alan Shepard, a Military Sealift Command dry cargo-ammunition ship, was tasked with transiting to the area to assist the residents who required basic survival needs following the effects of heavy rain and winds in excess of 150 mph brought on by the super typhoon.

Read the rest here.

It is easy to take this for granted, and by the absence of press coverage (2 stories, here and here), we apparently do. We shouldn't. Our naval presence everywhere and the capability to respond anywhere quickly is what makes the US unique in the world today.

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.

UN Considering Maritime Interdiction Among UN Sanctions

Give the Obama administration a lot of credit, if China is not going to veto the UN Resolution in the works regarding North Korea, then this is clearly a step forward. Several experts have suggested now is a very good time to push North Korea, and this is a push.

The actions in a draft U.N. Security Council resolution presented Wednesday also could deal a serious blow to the North's weak economy by pinching its already limited ability to import goods on credit. Cutting off concessional loans would force the North to use more of its scant cash reserves to finance imports.

As worked out by the five veto-empowered U.N. Security Council members — the U.S., China, Russia, France and Britain — plus two of North Korea's most concerned neighbors, Japan and South Korea, the new sanctions would ban North Korea from exporting all weapons, including ballistic missiles.

So what exactly does this mean?

What could be different this time are provisions for inspection of vessels on the high seas or in seaports if the ships are reasonably suspected of carrying prohibited arms, including nuclear- and missile-related items.

The draft U.N. resolution does not authorize the use of military action to enforce any of its provisions, but William Tobey, a nuclear expert at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said the sanctions still could serve to deter some prospective buyers of North Korean arms.

"It does help" in that regard, Tobey said. "These are significant sources of revenue for North Korea. They tend also to sell fairly destabilizing weapons to areas of the world that are often in turmoil. So there are several constructive practical effects from an effective (U.N.) action in this area."

That sounds a lot like a naval blockade to me, and apparently it sounds like it to Japan too.

JAPAN may change its laws to allow its navy to inspect North Korean vessels on the high seas if the UN Security Council approves such a step, the government said on Thursday.

'Once the resolution is adopted, we have to clear the issue of enacting a domestic law,' to pave the way for naval intercepts by officially pacifist Japan, said Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura.

The question to be asked is, why is Barack Obama pushing North Korea when news reports suggest North Korea may fire yet another ballistic missile as soon as this weekend, and may be preparing to detonate yet another nuclear weapon according to some news reports? The answer is, the 6-party talks have changed the conditions.

No question the 6-party talks were unsuccessful in achieving their goals of dismantling the North Korean nuclear program, but there is a reason why the Democratic Party political elites in the US have been exactly right about the necessity to talk to our enemies, and George Bush of all people, by talking with North Korea has demonstrated this reason. Before the 6-party talks there was a real concern that the collapse of North Korea would lead to a regional conflict. The 6-party talks, by bringing together China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States has served as a way to deconflict that possibility, and there is almost no chance now that any of the parties to the 6-party talks are going to go to war with each other over what is left of North Korea. In fact, China's biggest concern has become the flow of refugees, not the occupation of territory.

We, the rest of the world, are not prepared to see the reality of what is North Korea today. Should the regime fall anytime soon, the reality of the conditions inside North Korea in regards to the people is going to be stunning from the perspective of most Americans. I don't think people really get it. Over the last five years North Korea has suffered climate events that have caused enormous damage to crops, while at the same time the regime has clearly been heavily investing in military power. The provocative actions of launching missiles and detonating nuclear weapons has disrupted supply of food and aid into North Korea, and combined with economic sanctions the people are in dire need of assistance that most people are completely unaware even exists. Just how bad is it really in North Korea? This article from 2004 tells a story that when broadcast internationally on TV is going to shock many in the world. You can bet China wants to do everything possible to avoid being associated with any blame of this.

The World Food Program and UNICEF reported last year that chronic malnutrition had left 42 percent of North Korean children stunted — meaning their growth was seriously impaired, most likely permanently. An earlier report by the U.N. agencies warned that there was strong evidence that physical stunting could be accompanied by intellectual impairment.

South Korean anthropologists who measured North Korean refugees here in Yanji, a city 15 miles from the North Korean border, found that most of the teenage boys stood less than 5 feet tall and weighed less than 100 pounds. In contrast, the average 17-year-old South Korean boy is 5-feet-8, slightly shorter than an American boy of the same age.

The height disparities are stunning because Koreans were more or less the same size — if anything, people in the North were slightly taller — until the abrupt partitioning of the country after World War II.

South Koreans, feasting on an increasingly Western-influenced diet, have been growing taller as their estranged countrymen have been shrinking through successive famines.

It is brutal proof of the old aphorism: You are what you eat.

The article goes on.

Foreigners who get the chance to visit North Korea — perhaps the most isolated country in the world — are often confused about the age of children. Nine-year-olds are mistaken for kindergartners and soldiers for Boy Scouts.

"They all looked like dwarfs," said Kim Dong Kyu, a South Korean academic who has made two trips to North Korea. "When I saw those soldiers, they looked like middle-school students. I thought if they had to sling an M-1 rifle over their shoulders, it would drag to the ground."

To the extent that they ever get to meet South Koreans, the North Koreans are likewise shocked. When two diminutive North Korean soldiers, ages 19 and 23, accidentally drifted into South Korea on a boat, one reportedly was overheard saying they would never be able to marry South Korean women because they were "too big for us," according to an account in the book "The Two Koreas," by Don Oberdorfer.

The soldiers were repatriated to the North at their own request.

The ramifications are not just physical.

The issue of IQ is sufficiently sensitive that the South Korean anthropologists studying refugee children in China have almost entirely avoided mentioning it in their published work. But they say it is a major unspoken worry for South Koreans, who fear that they could inherit the burden of a seriously impaired generation if Korea is reunified.

"This is our nightmare," anthropologist Chung said. "We don't want to get into racial stereotyping or stigmatize North Koreans in any way. But we also worry about what happens if we are living together and we have this generation that was not well-fed and well-educated."

About 500 North Korean children have come to South Korea, either alone or with their parents, and they are known to have difficulty keeping up in the school system, say people who work with defectors.

Although South Korea gives defectors priority in going to the best universities in a form of affirmative action, about 80 percent have ended up dropping out, Chung said.

...

From an anthropological standpoint, the North Korea situation has attracted considerable interest because it is, Pak said, the first documented case in which a homogeneous group of people have become so distinct because of nutrition and lifestyle.

In the meantime, the George Washington carrier strike group got underway in the Pacific Thursday, while the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group entered the 7th Fleet area of operations. I don't have any sense for how North Korea will react to the sanctions, nor if the intelligence is good to conduct any maritime interdiction operations against potential North Korean military exports, but the US Navy does have a lot of ships moving into that theater of operations right now, ready if necessary.

China Measures Reaction in South China Sea

I think this is the right move. This is a smart way to avoid creating an international incident with a US Navy warship and the PLA Navy. IHT has the story.

China has deployed a large fisheries patrol boat to a group of disputed islands in the South China Sea, a state newspaper said Sunday, a week after a U.S. Navy vessel and Chinese ships had a confrontation in those waters.

The Beijing News said the vessel, China Yuzheng 311, would reach the Paracel Islands on Sunday to patrol China's exclusive economic zone and strengthen fishery administration in the South China Sea.

The ship, a converted Chinese naval rescue vessel, was deployed Tuesday from Guangzhou in southern China, it said. Calls to China's Fisheries Administration rang unanswered Sunday.

U.S. defense officials have accused Chinese vessels of harassing an unarmed U.S. Navy sub-hunting ship last Sunday. China said the ship was operating illegally in its exclusive economic zone. Beijing views almost the entire South China Sea as its territory.

I see this as very smart. China knows the Obama administration won't remove the ship, and China isn't going to find friends who want to take the same approach to maritime law that China has, a good example would be how the UAE would beat Iran over the head with the Chinese interpretation of EEZ and ownership rights for territories in the Persian Gulf. Ultimately China's position is well known to be out of step with international law on the issue, but they can keep it within the boundries of a EEZ issue by responding and observering with their fishery administration.

There has been speculation that China reacted strongly to the Impeccable because the Impeccable was tracking one of the new PLA Navy nuclear submarines out of Sanya. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming US-China military meet and greet goes. Depending upon the results of that meeting, it is possible we may end up with confirmation what the US was doing, and why China decided to react so strongly.

Enter Politics - Stage Right

AP is reporting.

In Washington on Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton emerged from a private meeting to say the countries agreed on the need to reduce tensions and avoid a repeat of the confrontation.

But neither side yielded in their conflicting versions of events, even as they prepare for a much-anticipated first meeting between Hu and President Barack Obama at next month's G20 summit in London.

Defense Department officials say the Impeccable was on a mission to seek out threats such as submarines and was towing a sonar apparatus that scans and listens for subs, mines and torpedoes. With its numerous Chinese military installations, Hainan offers rich hunting for such surveillance.

Of particular interest is the new submarine base near the resort city of Sanya that is home to the Chinese navy's most sophisticated craft.

Telling the truth is so much easier, and it brings out a response from China.

China's Defense Ministry is demanding that the U.S. Navy end surveillance missions off China's southern coast following a weekend confrontation between an American vessel and Chinese ships.

In its first public comment on the issue, the ministry has repeated earlier Chinese statements that the unarmed U.S. ship was operating illegally inside China's exclusive economic zone.

Ministry spokesman Huang Xueping said in a statement faxed Thursday to reporters that, "The Chinese side's carrying out of routine enforcement and safeguarding measures within its exclusive economic zone was entirely appropriate and legal."

Huang said: "We demand the United States respect our legal interests and security concerns, and take effective measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents."

See previous analysis here and here.

Observing the Incidents Off the Chinese Coast

In the maritime domain, China is best seen as primarily seeking to extend and consolidate its sovereignty, rather than to protect its sovereignty per se, since the likelihood of invasion from the sea probably approaches zero. Its strategy is two-pronged. First, China is actively attempting to extend its authority in areas already under its jurisdiction by recasting the traditional relationship between coastal states and the international community and pressing for enhanced coastal state jurisdiction over traditional international freedoms in coastal waters and air space. Second, China has many claims over islands and sea space that are actively disputed by its neighbors. China is consolidating and defending its historical claims to islands in the East and South China Seas and to the maritime zones that will accrue to whoever gains undisputed sovereignty over them.

Many of the activities necessary to develop and consolidate these claims are non-military—or at least non-coercive--in nature; they rely on the use of all instruments of China’s national power, including deft diplomacy, prolific track two academic activities, disciplined information management, and others. That said, there is a clear military component in this ‘non-coercive’ aspect of China’s efforts to expand and consolidate its control over its maritime periphery. Several articles in recent issues of the daily newspaper published by People’s Liberation Army Navy, Renmin Haijun [People’s Navy], for instance, have described the Chinese perspective on three ‘new’ types of modern warfare: Legal Warfare, Psychological Warfare, and Public Opinion Warfare. The focus of each of these activities is fundamentally to create and to advance international and domestic legitimacy for China’s viewpoint of its sovereign authority. In the author’s words, Legal Warriors must “be far-sighted…to discern any problems before they actually arise,” in order to “provide a legal pretext for military action,” and to “engage in legal contests to vie for the legal initiative” in order to “safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” There is, of course, in addition to the Legal Warfare also a traditional military component to China’s sovereignty extension and consolidation strategy (“When reason fails and there are legitimate grounds, categorically adopt unyielding military means.”) It is this blend of coercive and persuasive capacity that appears to underpin China’s approach to consolidating and expanding its sovereign maritime interests.

The statements above put into context the activities observed over the last week off the coast of China, and is part of testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission regarding China’s Views of Sovereignty and Methods of Access Control given by Peter A. Dutton, Associate Professor, China Maritime Studies Institute, U.S. Naval War College on February 27, 2008... over a year ago. The entire testimony is brilliant analysis that gives context to China's activities and strategy. It will be difficult for anyone to offer analysis of the intentions demonstrated by China in this latest incident better than Professor Dutton's testimony.

The testimony goes on to note how China will use all instruments of state to disrupt activities related to intelligence gathering in China's economic exclusion zone, and uses the broadest possible interpretation of the UNCLOS to intimidate neighbors, most notably Japan, regarding maritime boundaries, territorial claims in the maritime domain, and to push back any perceived encroachment by foreign powers conducting military reconnaissance. The United States is well grounded in accepted international maritime law in this case, and it is noteworthy the United States has established a united front on this issue at all levels of government from the White House down. The message appears clear, the United States is not going to change policy or be intimidated, which means operations will continue and it will be China who makes the next move.

Reviewing the Incident

Ocean Surveillance Ships (T-AGOS) like USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) and USNS Victorious (T-AGOS 19) are unarmed civilian manned ships that work for the Navy, but the ships have very sophisticated equipment. Both the USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) and USNS Victorious (T-AGOS 19) utilize the AN/UQQ-2 Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor System (SURTASS) for long range underwater detection capability, primarily for finding submarines. The USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) also has the AN/UQQ-2 Low-Frequency Active (LFA) active adjunct to the SURTASS passive capability. In researching the Ocean Surveillance Ships, I admit it made me angry how much information about these sonar systems is public information thanks to the constant lawsuits by the environmental movement. Those folks need to seriously ask themselves whether they are helping the sea mammals more than people like the Chinese, and I'm not exaggerating the necessity for the question.

On March 5th, a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a high-intensity spotlight to illuminate the USNS Victorious (T-AGOS 19) as it operated in the Yellow Sea, about 125 nautical miles from China's coast. I did a little messing around with Google Earth and created a best guess approximation of the location based on the details reported in the media. On March 6th a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of USNS Victorious (T-AGOS 19) at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.

Also on March 5th an unidentified Chinese frigate approached USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) without warning and crossed its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards according to news reports. Two hours later a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducted 11 fly-bys of USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) at an altitude of 600 feet and a range from 100-300 feet. The frigate then crossed Impeccable's bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400-500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions.

On March 7th a Chinese intelligence ship challenged USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) to leave the area or "suffer the consequences."

On March 8, 2009, five Chinese vessels including a Chinese Navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the ship while it was operating in international waters about 75 miles south of Hainan Island. According to the Pentagon statement, the Chinese vessels surrounded USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23), two of them closing to within 50 feet, waving Chinese flags and telling Impeccable to leave the area. It was at that point the firehoses and underwear incident occurred, followed by the two trawlers stopping directly in front of USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) which required the ship to emergency stop to avoid collision. According to this caption on the US Navy's website, the Chinese trawlers attempted to use a grapple hook in an apparent attempt to snag the SURTASS USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) had deployed.

Strategic Communication

The civilian mariners and Navy personnel of USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) deserve a lot of credit for working their way out of a tough situation. I imagine being in close quarters with several ships clearly intimidating and attempting to steal equipment is not a pleasant experience. Why or whether the Navy left the ship out by itself in that position, particularly considering history, raises serious concerns about the safety of civilian mariners being asked to conduct primary military functions for the fleet. Hopefully there is an untold story of reinforcements.

In my opinion, every level of government, except one, has done a great job handling this incident.

The only dark spot for the United States is in this entire incident is the military's deceptive communications strategy with the American people. This American Forces Press Services article states the "ship is an ocean surveillance vessel and was mapping the sea bottom when the Chinese ships approached." As AP military writer Anne Gearan is reporting, and just about every experienced hand in the comments has noted, both T-AGOS ships were clearly monitoring for Chinese submarine operations, which is exactly what Peter Dutton recommended in his testimony last year to Congress that the Navy should be doing.

Somebody in the DoD apparently believes the American people can't handle the truth regarding what our ships would be doing off the Chinese coast. Can someone please explain how collecting intelligence on the least transparent nation in the world while in international waters with an unarmed ship whose primary purpose is to monitor submarine activity is somehow a threatening act towards China if we say it out loud. If we wanted to be threatening to China, we would use one of our heavily armed AEGIS ships or better yet, one of our first in class submarines.

The Navy needs to believe in transparency when they attempt to be transparent, and honesty is the best approach. The Navy hides from explaining a massive number of submarines populating the Asian littorals right up until they need money from Congress, instead of simply being honest in moments exactly like this. Which definition of Naval leadership suggests concealing obvious, necessary activities from the American people instead of explaining what the fleet actually does when it leaves port?

Where does the intimidation for misleading public statements come from? Does the Navy leadership realize that they come off publicly dishonest on every Navy topic in the news. Do we get to look forward to the next hearing in the House where the Navy will say something completely different than last time, which was different from the time before that, which was different from the time before that? Is this a culture of indecision, or deception? Am I the only person who sees a pattern of misleading information when the Navy talks to the American people? Might I suggest every naval officer take 10 minutes and read this...

Life in the Littorals

As the pictures show, I am assuming an approximate location of both Ocean Surveillance Ships (T-AGOS) based on the reported details to be near the submarine facilities at Qingdao and the widely reported new submarine facility at Sanya. The combination of active and passive sonars operating from USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) would allow the US Navy to track virtually all submarine activity from Sanya that would come southeast towards the deeper water of the continental shelf. It is noteworthy that if you take your ruler out for Google Earth, the continental shelf is about 75 miles south of Hainan Island, which is exactly where USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) was reportedly harassed by the Chinese.

Hans Kristensen does a report every year on the FAS Security Blog regarding the number of patrols Chinese submarines conduct annually. It is a really good bet the information the Federation of American Scientists are obtaining from U.S. naval intelligence through the FOIA can be sourced to operations just like this. It is also a really good bet that intelligence is accurate, and China doesn't like it.

This incident is clearly coordinated from the highest levels of Chinese government. The incident coordinates 2 different fleets, geographically located in two different provinces, coordinating aircraft from 2 different air bases, to intentionally intimidate a specific type of ship located in two entirely different bodies of water, at exactly the same time. It is going to take someone who can see the very top of the chain of command from their desk in order to coordinate that kind of activity, not only with the military air and sea assets, but coastal patrol, intelligence ships, Bureau of Fisheries, and two unmarked fishing trawlers sporting Chinese flags.

In our military, only NORTHCOM commander Gen. Gene Renuart and SOUTHCOM commander Adm. James Stavridis could do this, and even in our democracy nobody gets to that level of the military without having someone in Washington DC calling them every day. In other words, this incident appears to be directed from the top levels of the Chinese government, both military and political.

China's neighbors need to think carefully about some of the activities in this incident. The utilization of two unmarked trawlers in particular raises serious questions. China has a marine fishing fleet that consisted of 279,937 motorized vessels as of 2004, and is attempting to reduce that number to 220,000 by 2010 in order to insure waters aren't over fished. The problem is, the 2 trawlers in this incident look very similar to many, many, many scores of thousands of other trawlers off the Chinese coast. If fishing trawlers are going to act hostile under coordinated government guidance during peacetime, then what are our expectations be for treating these vessels during wartime. As a reminder of the definition of communism, the unmarked civilian ships and the mariners operating those ships have acted as instruments of the state in an aggressive action against a known military vessel during peacetime.

During a serious shooting war with China, only the country who believes in being defeated won't have a tactical contingency ready to put any of the 220,000 Chinese flagged fishing vessels on the bottom of the ocean. Want to exploit a strategic communications opportunity, makes sure the Chinese fishing industry understands the ramifications of using unmarked trawlers as instruments of state against foreign military vessels. China doesn't have anything like a fishing union, but the country does depend a great deal on the fishing industry to feed their population.

There are many other details in this incident worth discussing, but I'd encourage anyone looking to really understand the strategic context to read Peter Dutton's testimony. It really does help understand why China does the things it does, and offers good advice on what to do, and what to expect looking forward.

Some thoughts on the recent spat

I was looking through the Chinese websites today to see their thoughts on the matter and I saw this map of South China Sea. In case you are wondering, the red dotted boundary is the border that China is claiming. It's actually on all of the maps published in China. The red circle areas are all the major islands in South China Sea. Clearly, this is one of the most hotly contested regions in the world with numerous countries claiming the different islands and EEZ in this area.



Also, the link to 2001's EP-3 incident is quite strong here. Back in 2001, we didn't know about Sanya naval base that was under construction. I suspect that's what EP-3 was really spying at that time. This time, it's obviously spying on the submarine base at Sanya. Looks like this will be an area of major contention for years to come. I really do hope they find some kind of protocol for this type of cat & mouse game, because this certainly won't be the last time they have an incident. In a way, I think this kind of stuff must have happened before. Maybe, the navy is only releasing it now to try to get more military budget.

The Guardian Notes China's "Secret Tactics"

The Guardian is mocking China in this aptly named article Stand-off shows Chinese navy's secret tactics.

Maritime experts were given a rare glimpse of the underlying capabilities of the Chinese navy on Sunday, when crewmen involved in a stand-off with a US surveillance ship in the South China Sea revealed the fleet's previously hidden firepower.

The exposure came as the American vessel USNS Impeccable was attempting to defend itself against what the Pentagon claimed was co-ordinated harassment and aggression from five Chinese ships. Being unarmed, the Impeccable turned its fire water hoses against two of the Chinese vessels that had come within 50 feet in a threatening posture.

Then, the Pentagon records in the admirably restrained language of international diplomacy, "the Chinese crew members disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet."

In the annals of great naval battles, the contretemps may not rank alongside Trafalgar or Jutland. But it must be a contender for this year's award for naked aggression.

I'm going to hold off on any serious analysis on this topic for now. The three posts have good conversations going, and there are still missing details. Hopefully we see more photography, because I think it is very useful for analysis. Below is a brief summary of some things I've noted.

Anyone else notice the big yellow crane on front of the trawler? I suppose that is used for fishing....

Frank Hoffman's hybrid war shaping concept is evident all over this event. When I see trawlers deployed by China like this it sure doesn't fit the model of preparing to fight a peer competitor, and yet vessels like these trawlers are widespread across the South China Sea, and if you talk to the Southeast Asian oil industry folks, they have a history of harassing the oil industry off the Vietnam coast.

Anyone else concerned China appears to have produced this operation for the specific intent of stealing the sonar from our unarmed 'naval' vessel. That is a civilian mariner discussion waiting to happen. The way the Chinese are slow to innovate but excellent at copying technology, that sonar could propel the Chinese in ASW at a quicker pace. Did any reporters ask whether any technology was stolen? A definitive answer would be useful.

There is a national fleet discussion in this incident too. Based on news reports to date, over the last week US ships have been harassed by 2 trawlers, an intelligence gathering ship, a patrol vessel, a fisheries vessel, and a frigate all acting apparently in a coordinated way on behalf of someone able to issue orders to both the North Sea Fleet in the Yellow Sea and the South Sea Fleet in the South China Sea. That doesn't count the various aircraft involved in both locations.

While things unfold, I'll be here standing by my countrymen, the civilian mariners and Navy sailors, who get 15 minutes of fame they probably never wanted. I'll also join the Guardian in mocking China, because there is hypocrisy at work when a nation supports civilian trawlers acting as thieves against a US flagged unarmed ship off their coast while deploying destroyers to the coast of Africa to fight pirates.

There is a lot to examine closer in this discussion, but I think it best to let events unfold a bit more first.

China Calls Foul on US Navy Activities

Chinese news is accusing the United States Navy of breaking the law, Reuters is reporting.

An unnamed spokesman from the Chinese embassy in Washington denied the Chinese ships had violated maritime rules, and said U.S. ships had been conducting illegal surveying, the website of Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television (news.ifeng.com) reported.

"The U.S. claim about operating in high seas is out of step with the facts," the report quoted the spokesman as saying. "The U.S. navy vessel concerned has been consistently conducting illegal surveying in China's special economic zone," the station quoted the spokesman as saying.

"China believes this contravenes international laws of the sea and China's relevant laws."

Chinese authorities had "repeatedly used diplomatic channels to demand that the U.S. side cease unlawful activities in China's special economic zone," the report added.

How does this stack up with the facts as disclosed to date. This comes from MSNBC's First Take.

"Coastal states do not have a right under international law to regulate foreign military activities in the EEZ,” Major Stewart Upton said in a written statement. “The unprofessional maneuvers by Chinese vessels violated the requirement under international law to operate with due regard for the rights and safety of other lawful users of the ocean. We expect Chinese ships to act responsibly and refrain from provocative activities that could lead to miscalculation or a collision at sea, endangering vessels and the lives of U.S. and Chinese mariners."

The Navy.mil website caption of this photo says:

A crewmember on a Chinese trawler uses a grapple hook in an apparent attempt to snag the towed acoustic array of the military Sealift Command ocean surveillance ship USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23). Impeccable was conducting routine survey operations in international waters 75 miles south of Hainan Island when it was harassed by five Chinese vessels.

Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea covers Research and survey activities, and says:

During transit passage, foreign ships, including marine scientific research and hydrographic survey ships, may not carry out any research or survey activities without the prior authorization of the States bordering straits.

Does that even apply in this case?

The official statement from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told a news conference:

"Our ships operate fairly regularly in international waters where these incidents took place. We are going to continue to operate in those international waters and we expect the Chinese to observe international laws around them"

RAW DATA at Foxnews states it is quoting a DoD press release when it says:

Coastal states do not have a right under international law to regulate foreign military activities in the EEZ. The unprofessional maneuvers by Chinese vessels violated the requirement under international law to operate with due regard for the rights and safety of other lawful users of the ocean. We expect Chinese ships to act responsibly and refrain from provocative activities that could lead to miscalculation or a collision at sea, endangering vessels and the lives of U.S. and Chinese mariners.

I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like China was well within their right to ask the ship to leave or cease ocean surveys depending upon where the ship was. That does not mean they had the right to harass the ships with trawlers though, because that looks a lot like privateer activity. If Vietnam gave the US Navy permission to conduct ocean surveys, it is moot because the seas reported to be about 75 miles south of Hainan Island are contested EEZ for Vietnam.

That picture caption on Navy.mil appears to be the source of the legitimate Chinese complaint. The United States is not signatory of the UNCLOS, but may be eventually, and more to the point use the UNCLOS as accepted international law nonetheless.

The pictures on Navy.mil are very important for China observers though, quite revealing actually, and much more important than any diplomatic nonsense that spills out of this incident. Examining those pictures and what we are learning here is obviously a complicated topic, and the details outside the law are better examined more thoroughly in another post.

While the United States may or may not be in good standing with the law at this moment, further details revealed will ultimately decide. Like all things, early reports can be misleading, although I still say it is funny as hell the first report from the AP focused on the Chinese sailors in underwear, which gave us this classic comedy from Danger Room. That picture is hilarious. Underwear Barons of the South China Sea... indeed!

Photo From Underwear-Gate in the South China Sea

I think the description tells the story.

SOUTH CHINA SEA (March 8, 2024) A crewmember on a Chinese trawler uses a grapple hook in an apparent attempt to snag the towed acoustic array of the military Sealift Command ocean surveillance ship USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23). Impeccable was conducting routine survey operations in international waters 75 miles south of Hainan Island when it was harassed by five Chinese vessels. (U.S. Navy photo/Released)

I don't know about you, but I think the Navy should post a picture of the sailor in his Chinese made fruit of the looms.

See the other image on Navy.mil here. The awesome folks at Navy.mil read here, so speak out in the comments if you want to see more. I do!

Obama Administration Protests South China Sea Incident With China (Updated Again)

A little incident has occurred in the South China Sea between the US Navy and the PLA Navy. I bet the AP writer had fun writing this article, because we have a protest by the Obama administration and Chinese sailors in underwear.

The Pentagon says Chinese ships shadowed and maneuvered dangerously close to a U.S. Navy vessel in what appeared to be an effort to harass the American crew.

The Obama administration is protesting to the Chinese government. The protest will be delivered to Beijing's military attache on Monday.

The Defense Department said in a statement that a Chinese intelligence ship and several others surrounded the USNS Impeccable, an unarmed vessel with a civilian merchant marine crew. The U.S. vessel was conducting ocean surveys Sunday in international waters in the South China Sea.

The statement said the Navy sprayed one ship with water from fire hoses to force it away and the Chinese crew members stripped to their underwear and continued closing within 25 feet.

The question of professionalism by the PLAN is something that should be considered. Interesting timing too, just after Mil-to-Mil relations were restored between the two countries.

Clearly not everyone in China wants to play nice with the US. In the US, this type of thing would be the end of someones career. It will be interesting to see how China deals with it.

Update1: AP is reporting additional details here.

Pentagon officials said the close encounter followed several other incidents involving the Impeccable and another U.S. vessel Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.

—On Wednesday, a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a high-intensity spotlight to illuminate the ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious as it operated in the Yellow Sea, about 125 nautical miles from China's coast, the Pentagon said. The move was made without notice or warning, U.S. officials said. The next day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.

—On Thursday, a Chinese frigate approached USNS Impeccable without warning and crossed its bow at a close range of approximately 100 yards, the Pentagon said. This was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet and a range from 100-300 feet. The frigate then closely crossed Impeccable's bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400-500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions.

—On Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged USNS Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or "suffer the consequences."

Sunday's incident is reminiscent of a similar early foreign policy crisis that forced former President George W. Bush to deal with Beijing shortly after he took office—China's forced landing of a spy plane and seizure of the crew in April 2001.

That entire second article is a very informed piece. It looks like a government coordinated effort to me.

Update 2: White House response:

"Our ships operate fairly regularly in international waters where these incidents took place. We are going to continue to operate in those international waters and we expect the Chinese to observe international laws around them," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told a news conference.

Does this mean the USNS Impeccable will go back to Hainan Island and resume operations? If it does, Obama is handling this exactly right in my opinion. That approach doesn't threaten, stays within accepted international law, and demonstrates no fear.

Check out Salamanders take. Regular andrewdb posted the first comment over there "I think it is time for the carriers to make another run through the China straits."

For those who enjoy the long view by reflecting history, that would be the answer to the question "What would Bill Clinton do?"