Naval Gazing

I've mentioned before that Aircraft Carriers are increasingly obsolescent, looking more and more like massed infantry charges circa 1915. The American Prospect has an article about Chinese military advances, with this rightfully terrifying graph:

Clearly, the X factor for China is potential U.S. intervention. But China’s strategists think they may have the key to overcoming the United States: sinking a U.S. aircraft carrier. Chinese Major General Huang Bin explained the reasoning: “Once we decide to use force against Taiwan, we definitely will consider an intervention by the United States. The United States likes vain glory; if one of its aircraft carriers should be attacked and destroyed, people in the United States would begin to complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. president would find the going harder and harder.” China has equipped its advanced Sovremenny-class destroyers with Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles -- missiles designed to sink large vessels such as aircraft carriers.

First off, a number of bloggers have rightly worried that China is terribly wrong if they think sinking a major American naval force is a way to beat the Americans. Within hours, not days, the USAF would be smashing military and civilian facilities throughout China - and don't think the new bases in Central Asia aren't being prepared for exactly this. The Peoples Liberation Army Air Force has made some impressive improvements in the last decade, but it's still 90% 1970's-era Migs. An enraged USAF would, most likely, make quick work of the PLAAF and then proceed to destroy Chinese infrastructure.

Secondly, though, this shows one of the major weaknesses to aircraft carriers - simply the concentration of people on a large ship make it a tempting target. Witness the USS Ronald Reagan, the US Navy's latest carrier, which when fully crewed will carry more then 5,000 people and 80 aircraft. The combined value of hardware and personnel undoubtedly numbers in the tens of billions of dollars, if not more than $100 billlion. In terms of lives alone, a single sunken carrier could cause more casualties than the entire Iraq war thus far, and even more than 9/11. The carrier has both missile and cannons as point-defense, but the Sunburn missile mentioned above closes on it's target at a speed above Mach 2, giving the target less than a minute to react. If China decides on war, they might very well overwhelm a USN ship's point defenses by simply firing a large volley of (relatively) cheap missiles and quickly destroying the USN presence in North Asia. Even if it takes ten or more missiles to sink or incapacitate a carrier, the payoff in dollars alone could be 10:1 at least. The payoff in strategic value at eliminating a carrier group from the Pacific is incalculable.

Now, would China do this? Well, the words of a single Major General don't make for a compelling case. However, it's possible they've learned the wrong lessons from the Japanese experience of Pearl Harbour: "Gee, the Japanese would've won if they sunk the carriers." In order to neutralize US power, the Chinese would have to hit bases scattered across North and Central Asia, and would by definition find itself at war with some of the world's largest military powers - like Russia and Japan. It's hard to believe that Beijing would be this mad. I've long argued that Beijing may not be cute and fuzzy, but they aren't crazy, either. What we're talking about here - this would be insanity, and nothing less.