RETIRED NAVAL CAPTAIN: CHINESE NAVAL TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES, BETTER DISCIPLINE OUTPACE U.S. NAVY’S CAPABILITIES
by Capt. Joseph R. John (Ret), ©2018
(Jun. 4, 2018) — The below-listed op-ed by Admiral James A Lyons, Jr. USNA ’52. USN (Ret) discusses how the US Navy could counter China’s blue water navy and oppose China’s plan to control the South China Sea. Over the last ten years, China has developed a technically advanced blue water Navy whose goal is to be able to defeat the US Navy with conventional weapons; its rapid technology advances and ship-building programs have been fueled by China’s theft of advanced weapons systems and ship designs from US corporations and the US Navy. China’s long-range goal is to become the dominant global naval power in the next decade.
China’s plan is to expand its fleet to 351 ships, while the US Navy’s goal is to expand its fleet to 355 ships. Pentagon planners should not be planning parity with China; they should take a page out of President Reagan’s playbook and develop a larger and more advanced US Navy than China’s Navy. In addition to the Navy’s long-range ship-building program, it should modernize and recommission a certain number of ships in its reserve fleet.
Over the last eight years, with no opposition from the Obama administration, China has created four artificial manmade island bases on rocky shoals throughout the South China Sea. China has developed and is implementing a strategic zone offensive plan for the South China Sea and will most probably create other artificial manmade island bases on rocky shoals. Those island bases can’t be properly defended from a coordinated strike on all four bases, at the same time, by high-flying stealth bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles. There should never be a need for the US Marine Corps to execute four amphibious assaults to take control of those manmade island bases.
When China has 351 ships operating within the restricted area of the South China Sea, the US Navy will still be required to operate half of its fleet, or about 180 ships, in the vast Pacific and the Persian Gulf operating areas. China will therefore have a numerically superior naval fleet operating in the South China Sea. To ensure “Freedom Of The Seas,” the US Navy will be required to coordinate joint naval operations with the Navies of governments who must ensure free and open commercial transit through the South China Sea (Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Taiwan, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam).
China’s newest destroyer, in reality a light cruiser, has shifted the balance of naval power in the Pacific to China’s advantage; that new, advanced destroyer has over-the-horizon supersonic cruise missile technology. A missile fired from that destroyer will provide a US Navy ship a response time of only from 15 to 30 seconds to counter the over-the-horizon supersonic cruise missile fired at it. The US Navy will not have the technology to counter China’s over-the-horizon supersonic cruise missile threat until about 2025. China’s newest naval ships are on a technological par with US Navy ships, excluding the superior technology of the US Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers to China’s one aircraft carrier.
More worrisome than the development of the Chinese Navy’s technically-advanced fleet is the military discipline exhibited by the officers and crews aboard Chinese Naval ships. In the last ten years, the Chinese Navy has done an excellent job of training its all-male, fully-manned shipboard crews into a heightened state of readiness and military discipline. Compare that to how Obama’s Social Experiment on Diversity has changed the character, makeup, manning, readiness, and military discipline of shipboard crews in US Navy ships. For ten years, the US Navy has covered up serious shipboard manning and readiness problems. The shipboard manning problems occur just prior to six-month deployments of US Navy ships. Deploying Navy ships has experienced many married and single female crew members requesting transfer to shore duty just prior to deployment because of their recent pregnancies.
The makeup, manning and readiness of crews aboard US Navy ships often requires them to deploy in reduced states of readiness. The reduced manning results in fewer watch-standing sections, less time for training, lack of military discipline, fatigue for being overworked, and a reduced state of readiness. Those problems have been exposed by collision reports, explaining what led up to US Navy ships’ collisions at sea and groundings. Those collision reports also exposed the inadequate navigational procedures being followed by bridge and CIC watch-standers and the inability of the command to properly train watch-standers because of excessive fatigue, which contributed to collisions and groundings.
Some of the examples of collisions at sea are as follows. On August 21, 2017, ten sailors were killed when the USS John McCain (DDG-56), a guided missile destroyer, collided 50 miles east of Singapore with the ALNIC MC, a 600-foot oil and chemical tanker. On June 17, 2017, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), a guided missile destroyer, was broadsided off the coast of Singapore by MV CRYSTAL, a Philippines-registered cargo ship. On May 9, 2017, a 70-foot South Korean fishing boat collided on the port side of the USS Lake Champlain (CG-57), a guided missile cruiser, while the cruiser was conducting routine operations in international waters. On August 19, 2016, the USS Louisiana (SSBN-743), a ballistic missile submarine, and the USNS Eagleview (T-AGSE-3), a Military Sealift Command support vessel, collided off the Coast of Washington State while conducting routine operations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
In the last five years, 90 Commanding Officers of US Navy ships have been relieved of command because of collisions at sea and ships going aground as a result of inappropriate sexual relations with a crew member (by both male and female commanding officers) and for other reasons brought about by complaints filed by crew members against Commanding Officers on the IG Hotline (posters on Navy bases outline the 4-step Hotline complaint procedure required to turn in senior officers). In light of the fact that so many Commanding Officers are being continually relieved, Obama’s politically-correct selection criteria for new female and male Commanding Officers should be re-evaluated.
For eight years, Obama’s Social Experiment on Diversity has negatively affected the character, makeup, military discipline, unit cohesiveness, training, unit morale, and “Combat Effectiveness” of members of the US Armed Forces. The Cadets and Midshipmen matriculating at the five service academies have been indoctrinated in politically-correct leadership techniques, and their “Honor Codes” been negatively affected by the Social Experiment on Diversity—Honor Code violators are now being put through retraining programs (sometimes as many as three times) and are no longer being dismissed.
Lt. David Nartker of the US Naval Academy Class of 2011 surrendered his two heavily-armed 49-foot riverine command patrol boats with ten sailors in the Persian Gulf to a single smaller and less-armed Iranian speed boat “without a fight.” Naval Academy alumni still wonder how the Social Experiment on Diversity affected Lt. Nartker’s view of John Paul Jones’s doctrine of “Don’t Give Up the Ship” and would like to know how Lt. Nartker’s training permitted him to beg for forgiveness from his Iranian captors, who forced him and his crew down to their knees.
The leadership being provided in the US Navy by some of Obama’s politically-correct, pre-screened Flag selectees continues to drive Obama’s Social Experiment on Diversity into the training of the fleet and at the US Naval Academy to this day. Witness the celebration of Gay Pride Month at the Pentagon and on US Naval Bases, despite the fact that “military regulation” specifically prohibits promoting any political agendas on US Military installations.
The military discipline exhibited by the officers and the all-male crews aboard Chinese Navy ships demonstrates their heightened state of readiness because they are not being hamstrung by Obama’s Social Experiment on Diversity. Obama’s Social Experiment on Diversity continues to negatively affect the character, makeup, military discipline, unit cohesiveness, training, unit morale, and “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Navy.
Copyright by Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another website or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.
Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt USNR(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108
http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org
https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” -Isaiah 6:8
________________________________________________________________________________
Countering China’s Blue Water Navy
Unless one thinks that the above video is a movie or is full of hyperbole then one must “Know his enemy” and realize that the Chinese Navy would be a formidable opponent if the U.S. was at war with China. I remember as a Seaman off the coast of Vietnam in the South China sea, the day a Chinese vessel came along the port side of the Destroyer that I was on. I happened to be on port lookout at the time. We were at General quarters. It was a Chinese freighter but it had weaponry aboard. They were 50 Caliber Machine Guns. I’ve had one of those fired over my head once. On this particular day I had a bit of the Ship’s hull protecting me from the waist down. I had a flak jacket on, my binoculars and my phone. It wasn’t a cell phone mind you. This was 1972. The Captain yelled out. “Watch those (expletive deleted). If they move those guns in our direction (expletive deleted) that phone. I want you running in here and yelling ‘heads up’ about it”. My point is that war is a stressful and hectic situation in which one MUST be on their toes and ready at a second’s notice. There must be strong discipline in the military. There must be physical strength and mental acuity. There should be absolutely no consideration given to social experimentation with political correctness and the allowance of gay men and women in the armed services. The crew MUST be at it’s highest level of strength and might. We need MEN! Political correctness and capitulation to gays and women weakens the chain that defends our nation. Do I sound prejudiced? Discriminatory? That may be your opinion. However, I would rather have men, able to perform the tasks that befall them in time off war then women, who do not possess the biological makeup to wage war and I would rather not admit gay men or women. Strong manly men, built with the musculature and strength to sustain in combat. That’s what an Army and Navy requires. I admit that many Gays and Women have served in our armed services with gallantry and honor. However, in light of the fact that foreign armies rarely admit women and gays into combat we must endeavor to attain to the strongest force that we can muster. The day when Obama had male soldiers wearing high heels and dresses in a social experiment is the day, had I been in charge, would have been the day Obama got arrested for sabotage. -Robert “Doc” Laity, HM3
Right on target, Captain.
No women on ships; no queers in the military; no Muslims and that’s just for starters.
I’m sorry to have to say this, but, speaking from hands-on experience, if I were one of the sailors aboard one of those Navy vessels that surrendered to the Iranians, I would’ve disobeyed the direct order to surrender.
I was once in the position to follow a direct order and die or to be taken prisoner. I disobeyed the order and lead a dozen guys to exterminate the enemy, first with knives and then with everything we had, and we didn’t save anything for a rainy day. We weren’t operating under any quota scenario.
I fought but if I would’ve died at least I would’ve did fighting on my feet rather than cower on my knees.
Interestingly, a dozen others felt they way I did; the oddball was the wounded Lieutenant. Ring a bell?