Tag Archives: China

Swarms at Sea and Out-swarming the Swarms?

The Swarming Synchronized Speedboats of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Revue

This week Foreign Policy posted a new article by Navy Postgraduate School professor John Arquilla, in which he discusses the how “swarm” tactics employed by the Russians caused the failure of Napoleon’s 1812 invasion.

Arquilla is a prolific author who regularly writes about swarms and “net-centric” operations.  In the above piece he cites successful maritime employment of swarm tactics such as German submarine “wolf-packs” in the Second World War and the Sri Lankan Navy’s fight against maritime elements of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, or “Tamil Tigers”) earlier this decade.

It is unclear how Arquilla’s example of the Russian defeat of Napoleon is applicable to a broad range of operations at sea, however.  When swarms are discussed in terms of maritime operations, it is generally in the context of an asymmetric fight within a constrained body of water, such as Iranian plans to use swarms of small boats or the Chinese Type 22 Houbei fast attack craft.  Napoleon’s Grand Armee was vulnerable to Russian swarm attacks on the march back from Moscow because of its extended supply lines.  In contrast, one of the primary advantages of sea power is that it provides the space for strategic maneuver and the ability to avoid such exposure to swarms.  Swarms and Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) weapons and tactics could still threaten naval forces within specific areas in which the ability to maneuver is restricted, or are within the range of weapons on land, but they do not take away one of the main advantages of sea power, the ability for a state to choose where to best deploy its forces.

Lieutenant Commander Mark Munson is a Naval Intelligence Officer and currently serves on the OPNAV staff. He has previously served at Naval Special Warfare Group FOUR, the Office of Naval Intelligence and onboard USS ESSEX (LHD 2). The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official viewpoints or policies of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

9th Season of “Deadliest Catch” to Film in South China Sea

International Maritime Satire Week Warning: The following is a piece of fiction intended to elicit insight through the use of satire and written by those who do not make a living being funny – so it’s not serious and very well might not be funny – but apparently producer Todd Stanley thought so (see comments below).

 

SILVER SPRING, MD—Following a loss in ratings to NBC’s Stars Earn Stripes, the Discovery Channel has decided to change the setting of its award-winning reality fishing show Deadliest Catch to the South China Sea. 

 

Sources indicate that Discovery intended to cancel the series until Deadliest Catch producer Thom Beers presented the idea of moving the setting to either the Strait of Hormuz or the South China Sea.  With the annual ratings boost from Shark Week a year away, Discovery elected to keep the show and film the next season in the hotly contested Southeast Asian waters.

 

When asked about the drastic change, Beers said, “The South China Sea is a great move for the series and the hardy American fishing crews viewers have come to love – Wizard, Time Bandit, Northwestern, Cornelia Marie, they’ll all be there.  It’s home to a competitive fishing environment and surrounded by countries that have a passion for the sea.  You’ve got Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Malaysians, and Indonesians out there sailing together.  Now we’re throwing Americans right into the middle of this great, dynamic environment.”

 

Beers explained that the region’s depleted fishing stocks will actually enhance the show’s intensity because it raises the stakes for the competing fishing vessels.  “These guys will be fighting each other for every single fish—literally,” said Beers said with a grin. 

 

Sig Hansen, Captain of the fishing vessel Northwestern, also expressed confidence in adapting to the new environment.  “If there’s one thing that we need to master right away, it’s persistence.  We can’t turn around no matter what or who is in front of us.”  Hansen also talked about the safety situation.  “In the Bering Sea, we didn’t always have the Coast Guard backing us up because of the conditions.  However, we’re told that in the South China Sea all these different nations send in their Coast Guard and military vessels to patrol the area.  It’s a lot safer in my opinion.”

 

The crews of Deadliest Catch will face many exciting new challenges in the 9th Season.

The lack of an American port does not deter Beers from basing the show in the region.  His team plans to set up their base on one of the sea’s many islands.  Producer Todd Stanley, Beers’ partner, said “Look, a lot of these islands, like the Spratly’s, don’t have any residents.  We’re thinking, why not go in take one for ourselves?  Of course, we would do the proper legal thing and make sure to hoist an American flag to keep everyone calm.” 

 

Stanley revealed that the ships could just anchor at the Scarborough Shoal if they cannot find an island.   “We’ll just follow the Chinese model, if necessary, and show up with an old-looking map with some lines drawn around things.  I’ve got an old place-mat from my childhood.  Do these dashes around Australia mean I own it? Who knows, they could just be spaghetti stains – the important point is it would take the UN years to sort through our claim.”

 

When asked for a statement, the Association of Southeast Asians (ASEAN) could not respond with an official comment.  Deputy Press Secretary Naoko Saiki believes that the story is a hoax.  “It’s hard to believe America is home to a television series about crab fishing…this is probably fabricated by one of the nationalist groups in the region.  Everyone knows that Americans only watch Jack Baur.”

 

Discovery announced that they are also moving Sons of Guns to Iraq and American Loggers to the forests in Colombia. Production on Season 9 starts in October and will premiere on the Discovery Channel in early April.

Senkaku Islands Shuffle

                                            ….or Diaoyus Disco, Tiaoyutai Tango…

As tensions between China and Japan began to ease this week over competing claims to the Senkakus/Diaoyus, Taiwan dispatched a dozen coast guard vessels to escort its own approximately 40-ship fishing fleet to the disputed islands, which it also claims as the Tiaoyutai. Upon arrival, some of the ships entered the islands’ territorial waters and engaged in a water-soaked confrontation with Japan’s coast guard. Taiwan has reportedly withdrawn its coast guard vessels from the area, having made its point.

More interesting photos from the maritime ballet can be found here and here.

h/t: Galrahn

                                               “I see your water cannon is as big as mine.”

Some economic consequences of a ‘hot’ conflict over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands

An island of tranquility.

With the dispute between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands heating up, some have wondered about the prospect of a war between the two states and its possible outcome.  Though unlikely, a war between the world’s second and third largest economies, who alone share over $340 billion in bilateral trade, would be rather unfortunate, to say the least.  It is, however, an interesting exercise to consider some of the implications – in this case specifically economic – of such a conflict.

 

One consequence would be the disruption of sea- and air-borne trade flows in the region.  The Senkakus/Diaoyus lie approximately 100 nm northeast of Taiwan, in the vicinity of two of the busiest shipping channels in the world – the Taiwan and Luzon Straits.  Trade across the Taiwan Strait alone amounted to $147 billion in 2011, a figure which does not include trade simply passing through the strait to other destinations.  Many Asia-bound vessels from the Americas pass through the Luzon Strait, and both straits are key routes for oil shipments to Japan and Korea.

 

While one hundred nautical miles might seem a long distance, the range of Chinese and Japanese naval and aerial weapon systems means that any combat around the islands could spill over into adjacent areas, especially as each side engaged in whatever maneuvers were necessary to gain the upper hand.  The most modern Japanese anti-ship missile, for example, has a range of approximately 115 nm.  Chinese shore-based anti-ship ballistic missiles, by comparison, may have a range upwards of 1,700 nm, encompassing the entire region.  Combat, therefore, could lead to the inadvertent destruction of merchant shipping in these crowded waters, and would certainly cause a spike in maritime insurance rates and fuel costs as ships reroute to avoid combat zones, cutting into the profitability of overseas trade.

 

In addition to disrupting physical trade flows, a conflict between Japan and China could disrupt capital flows.  Even a short conflict would generate a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of investors.  Doubts could develop as to the longevity and profitability of investments in both countries due to fears of government asset seizures and heavy regulations on trade and monetary flows to keep their own economies relatively stable.  Numerous Japanese factories in China have already publically closed, due to a wave of popular anti-Japanese sentiment and protests, while still more major companies may be keeping quiet about their own closures.  Chinese and Japanese government policies to deliberately seize each others’ assets would only exacerbate the effects of these closures.  A conflict would also have unpredictable consequences for foreign exchange rates.  Lastly, the effects would be long-lasting:  any conflict would sow doubts about the long-term prospects for a peaceful East Asian environment. 

 

Not for all the fish in the sea.

Adding to the uncertainty is the unknown role the United States would play in any Sino-Japanese conflict.  According to the terms of the U.S.-Japanese bilateral defense treaty, the United States is obligated to come to the aid of Japan in the event of war. U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated recently that the United States would abide by its treaty obligations if Japan was attacked, and Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba noted that the treaty covers the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.  It is, of course, not certain that the U.S. would become involved, or could become involved in the time frame of a short conflict.  If it did, however, its involvement would cause even greater disruptions to world trade and capital flows.  In 2011, the volume of U.S.-China trade topped $500 billion.  The result of direct, U.S.-Chinese conflict would almost certainly be a halt to that trade, to the detriment not only of the respective nations, but also the global economy.

 

The prospect of the disruptions to global trade outline above would be concerning enough at the best of times, but these are not those times.  A recent article in the New York Times noted that global economic growth appears to be slowing due to faltering Chinese growth and continuing problems in Europe.  Analysis by The Economist suggests that even a 3.9% reduction in the rate of Chinese capital accumulation would eliminate all of Taiwan’s 2012 economic growth, and ‘hobble South Korea.’  Given that this is a potential result of current, purely economic factors, an armed conflict between two of the world’s great economic powers could only magnify it.

 

With the potential negative economic consequences of a war over the Senkakus/Diaoyus, let’s hope that cool heads prevail in Tokyo and Beijing.

 

Ian Sundstrom is a graduate of the War Studies Masters Program at King’s College London.  He is currently engaged on a research project for Imperial War Museum – Duxford in Cambridge, United Kingdom.