Who Would Win a Pacific Naval Engagement?

Naval warfare seems a thing of the past. When one thinks of great naval battles, one thinks WWII and the genius of Chester Nimitz and Raymond Spruance. They think of the battles at Midway and Leyte Gulf.

But since then, what major battles have occurred? Some skirmishes during the Korean War and the war in the Falklands maybe but nothing of any major consequence. The US became the baddest mofo's on the water and our supremacy has never been challenged except for attempts by Russia to keep up, which ultimately and spectacularly failed (although they are spending more money to get some of their past glory back with mixed results).

So naval warfare now has become the projection of power by the US as a means to prevent war. If China and Japan start getting antsy, we send a carrier battle group to the region to keep an eye on things and settle it down before they come to blows. If Iran threatens the straits of Hormuz, we station an LHD in the area to make them think twice. And if a natural disaster occurs anywhere in the world we can send help.

Until recently, the US was the only game in town.

But now China has joined the game and they expect to be admired as more than just a "brown water" navy, they want to be known as a "blue water" navy, capable of projecting power farther from their shores. They've built up their capabilities steadily over the years by buying older equipment with the jewel being the carrier Liaoning (formerly the Soviet carrier Riga). The capabilities of the carrier will be at least 20 years behind the newer US Nimitz Class (and more behind the forthcoming Ford Class)  models with less than 25 pilots actually qualified to land on her deck. 

Japan has built up their naval forces as well in recent years--doubtless because of the direct threat from China. China has some scores to settle with her eastern neighbor and memories last a long time in that region. Japan has a sizable submarine fleet but only can deploy helicopter carriers versus fixed wing on the surface.

Australia, South Korea and Canada can also bring some force to bear if needed. A breakdown of current and proposed carrier forces can be found here.

Here's a breakdown of what each nation has currently available:

Taking the information above and the actual threat we could expect, the US would have to match up against the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN). A conflict that could start over a direct threat to Taiwan, a battle with neighboring countries over disputed islands or a conflict over regional claims of territorial water rights. 

The Chinese have built mobile missiles including the HQ-7 that  could be a major threat to our carriers and have them deployed defensively and offensively all along their coast. Another major concern would be asymmetric warfare including disruption of our Internet and satellite communications, which the US Navy heavily relies on. China has deployed several missiles and possibly lasers with the major targets being command and control satellites in all orbits. For more on this I highly recommend this paper written by the good folks at the Heritage Institute.

Based on available information and using the chart above, the US could bring roughly 24 submarines to bear at any one time within the Pacific theater. Add to that two Canadian, and possibly 15 Japanese subs versus 46 Chinese vessels. I've used roughly 2/3 of the above total availability taking into account maintenance and stand downs. That's about an even number but the US would be forced to work with different partners while China would be working with their own forces using their own doctrine. Add to that that submarine warfare is generally not a team effort. Call it a slight US advantage since the PLAN have been training heavily for years and have made some progress (and haven't been shy about showing it according to some reports). The progress they have made is unknown at present.

But when it comes to actual naval superiority, it comes to aircraft carriers, the aircraft and armament they carry, their defensive capabilities and vessels accompanying them. Here the US has a vast advantage. In any engagement with the Chinese, the first thing they would attack would be our carriers and our first priority would be stopping them. Do we have the capabilities to do so? That is a question that has no answer at this point. The Chinese claim they've had great success with the DF-21D missile that is solely designed to take our carriers out. But in this world of new technology becoming obsolete due to improvements by the other side, we may now have a solution. Call this a major US advantage.

And finally, what about troop landing capabilities? 

The US LHD fleet including the WASP and Tarawa classes are highly-equipped troop transports with their own air wings. The air wing includes Harriers and Osprey's (and hopefully the USMC F-35) while also carrying anti-submarine helo's and additional troop transport aircraft. Tanks and Marine AmTracs can be put ashore quickly to project a large amount of power in a short time. The WASP class can carry and land a complete Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and supply that unit for extended periods while in battle. This is all contingent on the ability of air assets in locating and neutralizing Chinese missile batteries and aircraft that could harass any such landing. 

In conclusion; a large sea battle between the likely belligerents would result in a US win but potentially at heavy cost. The US would move assets from the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic if needed but based on current readiness levels, the US would neutralize and beat any adversaries within a short period. 

Obama Has Finally Made Us #1 Again

Unfortunately it's in highest corporate taxes. Yes, Japan (the land of 10-year recessions) is about to cut their tax rate while Obama stands fast to a horrible policy that drives businesses to foreign lands where they actually enjoy having jobs and profits and stuff:

Come Sunday, America finally has something to crow about in its economic war with China and Japan: It will have the highest jobs-killing corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

No, it’s not an April Fool’s joke. When Japan officially slashes its rate to 36.8 percent Sunday, America’s will be tops at 39.2 percent.

President Obama has proposed a rate of 28 percent, but Republicans charge that it comes with $350 billion in new, off-setting taxes. The GOP is pushing for a cut to 25 percent, but the election year is getting in the way of any deal.

The Business Roundtable has been pushing for a clean cut in corporate tax rates, claiming it would spur job growth and industrial reinvestment. They even cite a recent move by England to cut their tax rates from 28 percent to 22 percent, which officials called “an advertisement for investment and jobs in Britain.”

The Obamatons just look at business as a source of revenue to spend on more programs designed to make us a better nation--albeit a nation with no jobs and helplessly addicted to more government handouts.

It's interesting, I was discussing manufacturing with a knowledgeable European guy the other day and he mentioned a resurgence in the US manufacturing sector. Yes, there's a slight resurgence but it's all in the south where state taxes are low and wages are steady. Imagine if the US corporate rate was reduced to say 18%, what would that do to the manufacturing sector?

Saturday Morning News & Notes

It's a rainy Saturday in South Jersey.

Here's what's news:

-The digital brownshirts score a win as they get UPS to stop advertising on Bill O'Reilly's show. I guess I'll stop using UPS now and use Fedex solely.

-Even the NY Times is forced to write about Obama's use of a tele-prompter for everything.

-Tonight is Earth Hour where global warmenist's are encouraging everyone to turn off their lights for one hour. Me, I'll be turning on so many extra lights you'll see my house from the space shuttle.

-In preparation of Obama curtailing gun rights, ammo is flying off the shelves.

-Japan is ready to shoot down any missile NoKo launches. Tensions will surely rise with long ago hatreds coming back fast.

Congress to US Carmakers: Sink or Swim

With trillions already tabbed for banks and insurance giant AIG, the US automotive industry is being pushed to the side and not getting a seat at the tax money trough:

WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - A senior Democratic senator raised doubts on Thursday that an attempt to bail out U.S. automakers had enough support to clear Congress this year.

As Republicans amplified their concerns about a bailout, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd raised the biggest red flag for fellow Democrats trying to craft a $25 billion rescue and pass it during a post-election session set to start next week.

"Right now, I don't think there are the votes," Dodd of Connecticut told reporters about prospects in the Senate. "I want to be careful of bringing up a proposition that might fail," he said.

I guess Dodd doesn't have any special friends at GM or Ford like he did at Countrywide but I digress.

Anyway, we have to draw the line somewhere and that somewhere is evidently the Big Three.

Detroit has been turning out an inferior product for decades now with a few exceptions. The Japanese, South Koreans and Germans have been designing and building better, sleeker and more efficient vehicles while GM, Ford and Chrysler have been regurgitating the same old same old for twenty years.

Add to that the inflated salaries paid to those assembling the cars in the US and you have the recipe for lower profits and lower sales. The average UAW worker makes somewhere between $30 and $40 per hour, but not said is that an extra $30 goes on top of that in benefits costs. Those benefits checks fund the pension plan, health care and, of course, help to line the pockets of UAW bigwigs and Democrat politicians. In other words, through greed and poor planning, the US auto makers have such huge payrolls that they've not been able to capitalize on the greatest advantage they have; no tariffs. The tariff savings are used up in payroll costs and not seen by the consumer who, when given the option of buying a Buick or an equally priced Toyota will almost always go with the higher-quality Japanese brand.

President Bush opened up the flood gates by pushing for the bailout bill and is now trying to keep the money from flowing out using a single sand bag and a small pump with a garden hose. It's not going to be that easy as Congress has instant access to trillions of dollars that they didn't have before and the spending will make earmarks look like pocket change. Bush has made a mockery of free market economics and by passing the bailout bill has paved the way for Obama t institute more socialist economic policies that will see spending balloon to the states and cities who are screaming "help!".

It's about time we took a breather and looked at what we have wrought. My guess is that Bush will long regret pushing for the bailout plan and going against a century of American thinking whereby companies that are not solid are than doomed to failure.

Dow Closes Up Nearly 900 Points

The buyers were back with a vengeance including bidding up two of liberal America's most hated companies: Walmart and Exxon.

we will weather this storm and buyers will return in force once things settle out. The dollar was up dramatically against the Yen.

Also, the White House warned banks that hording money given to them in the bailout scam will not be tolerated.

Let's let the markets work things out as they always tend to do.

South Korea a Rising Force

Bryan at Hot Air linked to this piece in the Chosun newspaper concerning the completion of a new Aegis destroyer in Korea. See if you can spot who they had in mind when they designed this ship:

The first of a new class of destroyers named for King Sejong the Great will be launched late this month. Korea's new ship with its Aegis combat system will be more powerful than Japan's most advanced Aegis vessel.

...King Sejong-class destroyers have better attack capabilities than Atago-class vessels, Japan's most up-to-date Aegis vessel which were deployed warfare-ready in March."

...All the features make King Sejong-class destroyers a kind of strategic weapons systems with strategic attack capabilities. Japan's Aegis ships carry no ship-to-surface missiles.

Emphasis mine. Just a bit of animosity towards the Rising Sun, don't you think? Both Koreas have a serious score to settle with Japan for the atrocities the Japanese visited upon them during the second world war. China does as well and that bears some watching as Japan will be the second target the Chinese attack after Taiwan and an alliance with South Korea would not be a welcome development.

In the next several decades, China will look to cement their power in the region and if they were able to co-opt South Korea, the Japanese would have only the US and Australia to aid them.