China and the New Warfare

Mike Burleson

According to recent reports China is buying more high-tech weaponry, by cutting back on conventional forces. To do so, they are reducing their army to about the size of America’s during the 1980's, but they still have a mass of reserves to call on. They are improving their fighters, warships, along with stocks of missiles, mostly aimed at Taiwan, but with a growing ICBM capability. All this on a defense budget a little more than Britain's and far less than our own.

America and Britain's answer to this should not be a cutback, but a compromise. Older weapons should be replaced with newer ones, not just discarded. UAV's, patrol ships, guided munitions, and cruise missiles should be priority over super carriers, nuclear submarines, battle tanks and "hot" fighters. All of the latter absorb massive amounts of funds without adding to our conventional capability. They may be useful, but we can no longer afford such luxuries in wartime.

These are the main reasons for cutbacks. The new weapons are so expensive they can only be built by our "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Government budgets are now stretched to the limits having to pay for social programs along with increased defense, something has to give. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. There is hope, however.

The infantryman, with GPS and a laser range-finder, is the new "God of Battles". He can call in an air strike with a guided bomb, whether fired from land, sea, or air. This is the new warfare. All he needs is a ride and a little cover to hide behind. A main battle tank out in the open has no defense against a laser-guided bomb. He cannot maneuver well enough and no armor can save him.

The age of sleek jet fighters is at an end, even as they reach their peak of performance. Nations now prefer to hide behind massive batteries of surface to air missiles, which too are coming of age. If a US patriot missile can destroy the ejected warheads of elusive battlefield missiles, what chance will a heavy jet fighter have? America and British warplanes are now utilized almost exclusively as "carriers" for guided missiles, bombs, and in the future, UAV's. Already AWACS planes control the air war, as mobile airborne command posts. How easy it will be to replace the bombers and jet fighters in a future war with cruise missiles and UAV's armed with guided munitions.

The new power at sea is not new after all. It is the venerable diesel/electric submarine. This was proved recently in war games when a clunky Aussie Collins class conventional sub "sank" a state of the art Los Angeles class nuclear boat, which is touted as the worlds quietest. Diesel subs are still quieter and are being constantly improved with digital periscopes, air-independent propulsion, and advanced underwater weapons. Concerning the latter, both America and Russia are experimenting with super-cavitating rockets which can approach the speed of sound underwater! There is no defense. Already, with so many advanced add-ons, diesel subs are approaching the price of its nuclear counterpart. During the Falklands War, Britain lived in mortal terror of Argentina's German built subs, even after spending decades in ASW development to defeat the nuclear boats. The Royal Navy never found the Argies.

The new capital ship of the surface navy is already with us and recently used in combat. This is the HSV-X1 Joint Venture catamaran. Joint Venture is a multi-purpose vessel, meaning it can do it all! During Operation Iraqi Freedom, she performed surveillance, ferried cargo, served as a command post for Special Forces, all in waters too shallow for destroyers or frigates, and at very high speeds(40+ knots). These unique vessels can also carry helicopters, missiles, and various unmanned vehicles. Their price? $50 million without add-ons. Already a nuclear supercarrier costs $5 billion plus, not including air-wing, escorts, etc. which adds up to about the same amount ( give or take a billion, which would mean 200 Joint Ventures!). Where are our priorities?

If this present trend continues, in 50 years we may see the transformation complete. Opening salvos in a future conflict will begin with long-range missiles fired at continental range and maybe from space. Airborne command posts will assess battle damage far from the area, utilizing stealthy UAV's for reconnaissance. Mop-up operations will then be called on using more UAV, and UCAV's as bombers armed with laser-guided munitions. Then will come the troops, which will be ferried from well off shore by helicopters or their future equivalent, from large naval barges. These barges will be similar to the defunct "arsenal ship" concept, riding low in the water and with clear decks to avoid detection. They will be multi-purpose, with various modules loaded as cargo carriers, missile launchers, and aircraft carriers. Some will even carry rail guns and laser beam weapons.

Closer to shore fast and maneuverable catamarans will attack shore batteries and coastal installations with rocket assisted cannon and lasers. These will also off load Special Forces, sow mines, and engage other warships. Conventional submarines, possibly propelled by all electric drive and able to stay underwater for weeks will already be in the area, conducting surveillance, and doing what a sub does best, searching for targets of opportunity.

With a bridgehead now established, the landing troops will spread out into the countryside like swift Mongol cavalry in LAV's, similar to the recent assault on Baghdad. Major cities and whole armies will be bypassed. Any force that mobilizes against it will be destroyed with long-range artillery armed with guided rockets, as well as air strikes. As each regiment is equipped with advanced communications and GPS, the entire process will be well coordinated despite the extreme distances involved.

The main effort may come from a friendly or occupied country, just as we launched our forces from Kuwait. This will allow a base of operations and allies to join in and overwhelm the enemy. Afterwards, when we negotiate a surrender with the Chinese they will easily transfer their navy to the east coast against Britain. By then it can only be hoped enough time will have been bought for the English to have taken the new warfare to heart, and save some form of western culture and democracy for future generations.

###

Mike Burleson is a regular columnist with Sea Classics magazine and an advocate of Military Reform. He resides in historic Charleston, SC.
charbookguy@myway.com