Can the U.S. afford a big Pacific realignment?

Can the U.S. afford a big Pacific realignment?

There are no good numbers for how much it will cost to realign American forces in the Western Pacific, nor clear ideas about what the alternatives are, the Government Accountability Office says in a new study. The report, cited by Stars & Stripes reporter Travis Tritten, puts its own huge potential price tag on the various moves, if they take place, and reawakens a longstanding question just as DoD begins to undertake its Mother of all Reviews: What is America’s strategy in the Pacific?

Wrote Tritten:

The U.S. military is moving ahead with one of the largest shift of Pacific forces since World War II without a good idea of how much it will cost or if the country can afford the bill, federal auditors said this week.


A report by the Government Accountability Office shows the realignment of forces in South Korea, Japan and Guam could cost the United States and its allies more than $46 billion this decade. Military estimates of the various components have been inaccurate or nonexistent, the report said.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department has not fully considered alternatives that could prove to be more effective and affordable, the GAO said. The report adds to growing doubt in recent weeks over the long-planned overhaul in the region, which could eventually allow servicemembers in South Korea to bring families along for three-year tours, reduce the controversial presence of Marines on Okinawa, and turn Guam into a major military hub in the Pacific.

This story doesn’t even include the word “China,” but that, clearly, is the long pole in the tent. If China and the Pacific will be tomorrow’s most important areas of American national focus — and they’re pretty important now — is it worth the costs of getting the strategic posture right?

If the Pacific were a game board in “Risk” or “Battleship,” how would you set up your pieces?

Join the Conversation

Given the shifting winds of alliances I don’t think you should count on basing access from ‘allies’. Any deployment strategy has to revolve around that fact. Of course the details of any potential conflict are going to have a big impact on that. May might sit out a Taiwan China scenario, but make the issue some kind of territorial issue such as the Spratelys and we probably would have more options.

I think we need to emphasize our strengths and deploy forces that minimize Chinese options. We need to be focusing on subs, a B3, and new and improved stand off munition options like the arclight program. Those systems either bypass Chinese anti access capabilities or are beyond their reach. This all pivots on whether or not we can break away from some of the traditional mind sets in what we procure and how we project power. I’m not sure we’re there yet, but I suppose the questions are at least being asked.

Fifty billion isn’t an awful bill for a one-time realignment, if you amortize that cost across a decade or more. Really, though, what is the alternative?

I agree, particularly if you do it correctly.

Including the US.

Building Guam into a major fortified base really puts a heck of a lot of eggs into one basket. I’d like to see a truly realistic study on Guam’s water supply. How many people can count on that supply alone to last indefinitely?

well you can always make fresh water from the sea water.…

I agree. Re-militarizing Wake and Midway might be an option to consider, but with appropriate aircraft to use the range. They make a good case for a new fighter-bomber aircraft.

I agree.

Strangely I find myself agreeing with a lot of what STemplar was said today

Fixed land bases are nice in peacetime but a huge liability when the shooting starts. If war does breakout in the Far East then all of the bases there will be wipe out in short order

We need to emphasis our maritime tradition and strengths which are mobility, speed, sea control, air control, surveillance. Therefore we need to concentrate on the following
1. Naval power; carriers for strikes, and subs for blockading. We need more carriers and subs
2. Long range cruise missile tech
3. Very long range bomber strikes from the mainland
4. Electronic warfare
5. Defensive technologies, BMD, laser, energy weapons, etc
6 Amphibious capability to kick open the door

As long as we are superior in these areas China won’t start anything. Once get behind or become weak then the shit will hit the fan.

I don’t think we necessarily need more carriers. Systems like the X-45/47 are going to be force multipliers. If we are able to bring some places like Iran and/or North Korea to a conclusion we probably would be fine with less carriers. I think it’s 4 you need to keep one deployed constantly. So if either Iran or the Norks could be resolved we probably would be fine with as few as 8 CVGs, after all that is quite a surge capacity still. You factor in a deployed X-47 type UCAV that could carry stand off munitions internally and carriers could have something on order of a 2000 nmi strike radius, pretty impressive.

I agree with the rest of what you say more or less. Subs in particular, they played such a lop sided pivotal role in how we beat Japan in WW2, I can’t believe our leaders now stand around scratching their heads as to how to off set China in the future. We should be expanding not only our existing platforms but considering diesel AIP vessels. Deployed in the right regions diesel electrics could be very potent for us. In the Pacific we could use Guam, Midway, and Wake to resupply from.

A diesel electric is a fraction of the cost of a nuke boat, for the cost of 1 VA class you can have something like 4 modern diesel electrics. They of course aren’t nearly as fast as nuke boats, but for closing the straits between the Indian Ocean and Chinese ports they would be more than capable or to slip close to Chinese shores and launch salvos of missiles from such close range the Chinese would never have time to react. They could be very effective operationally and from a cost perspective.

I consider a conflict with China to be a very remote option, however, that notion is based on the US continuing to deploy in a manner that very much discourages military adventurism.

Good Evening Folks,

It appears what Editor Ewing is talking about is the Pacific Defense Line that goes back to the 1980’s. It is anchored by Attu Island to the north and American Samoa in the South. Guam and Hawaii are the command centers. Guam has already been build up to handle nuclear submarines and carriers as well as the forward HQ’s for the 3ed. Marine Division. Under this Reagan era doctrine the US would abandon it’s bases in SKorea, Japan, Okinawa, the Philippines and Taiwan.

The baseings of this line would include bases on Tinian, Tarawa, Makin, Wake, Palau, Truk, Saipan, Kwajalein, and other island that were taken in the Mid Pacific by Admiral Nimitz in 1944–45.

This process is well under way, One interesting event happened in 1995 when a US Destroyer visited Guadlcanal for the 50th. Anniversary of the ending of the war and the natives lobbied for a naval base.

This is not really a draw back but a realization that foreign basing can catch a home country on the wrong side of US interests could make for some problems.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Desalinization is expensive, and requires fairly large equipment for any significant volume.

I will ask my usual question and request sources.

Some would argue that carrier groups require land-based air power for survival in a large-scale conventional war.

Almost all the analysis you see in the US about China is trying to relive the glory days of WW2. Nostalgia has replaced strategy. The navy has myths about hunting down the IJN once again the USAF has grand plans for bases and fleets of bombers that would vaporise in the opening minutes as the Chinese nuke them.
Of course it’s all just fine from the Chinese point of view.

The reality is a series of proxy wars for influence and here the Chinese are winning hands down.
Asia is awash with Chinese money, everywhere you go you see mainland tourists rich and loud and confident just as you once saw Americans. As one politician commented on the arrival of the pacific fleet we prefer wealthy Chinese business men to poor American sailors with AIDS

Take Afghanistan for instance. China’s economic support for Pakistan is buying influence many times what we have. China supports Pakistan, Pakistan controls the Taliban and bleeds the US. It’s all turning out very nicely for Chinese strategic interests. The Chinese could pull the plug any time by getting Pakistan to ship a few hundred manpads, but why would they want to, why not keep the US there forever ?

In many ways the late cold war roles are being reversed. We are trapped wasting money on military nostalgia just as the Russian military lived in constant memory of the Great Patriotic War, while the Chinese economy surpasses us based on balanced spending and a global outlook. Just as Russian economic influence was no match for American the Chinese are beating us hands down around the world.

It’s ironic that this isn’t news to many in the military industrial complex. Decline is openly discussed. From the military welfare queens who cant get a job in the civilian market to the contractors and their road-map for making profits on the back of an American decline there is a tact acknowledgment what is happening. But there is also an assumption that nothing can be done and it’s best to just loot what you can.

“Given the shifting winds of alliances I don’t think you should count on basing access from ‘allies’.”

That depends on which ‘allies’ you talking about. Yes, Australia is a fair distance from the front line, but we’re a solid ally of the US, you could base Subs out of Darwin for easy access to the straits of Malacca and the south china sea, Singapore would probably be more likely to stick with the US than china, so their a better place to put Subs & Mine Hunters, though harder to protect from land invasion.

Absolutely, if you do nothing its just inviting china to act more proactively against the USAs interests, take the time to develop a proper defensive strategy & then act.

“They make a good case for a new fighter-bomber aircraft.”

There’s already a good argument for a fighter-bomber, fighters can’t carry enough bombs/missiles over a larger enough distance to be effective, this is one of the arguments being used here in Aus in regards to buying the F-35 as replacements for our now scraped F-111s, we NEED a next gen F-111, sadly no such aircraft exists (unless you buy from Russia, the “Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback” would fill the role), so we have to make do with less capable aircraft. :(

Hahahaha

Excellent analysis.

Excellent analysis, Oblat.

Hey STemplar
We currently have 11 carriers (the fewest we’ve ever had I might add)
and right now
–4 are in dry dock or under repair
–3 are in port off of rotation, stand down, or in training
–that only leaves 4 more or less to cover the entire planet

In other words, if a major war broke out tomorrow we only have 1 or 2 carriers that can respond because the others are on the other side of the world and then 30–90 days later we may have a couple more available

If we go with your suggestion of 8 then
–3 would be in dry dock
–3 would be out of rotation, in training, etc
that only leaves 2 carriers to respond to a crisis

were would you deploy those two available carriers, one in the pacific, one in the med, or one in Indian ocean? One carrier isn’t going to stop the Chinese from starting sh*t, or anyone else.

Hi Rick, how about 3 in dry dock, 3 out of rotation, and 3 to cover the “entire planet” for a total of 9…repositioning at 35 knots.…along with 3 or 4 of the 11 amphibious ships capable of carrying F-35B and helicopters. There is talk of going to a one-war-at-a-time assumption. No other nation has more than two carriers and they are poor ones compared to ours.

All those carrier groups require lots of other ships as well. Eliminate two carrier groups and you save substantial sums. There is little more wasteful than seeing photos of 3 carriers in Norfolk and 3 in San Diego where they could be targeted in port. China isn’t going to start diddly because it would effect their bottom line.

Is a Bradly the same as a M1 tank?
is a car the same as an 18-wheeler?

Amphibious ships are not mini aircraft carriers. They are designed to support the Marines on the beach.
a few helos and F-35s aren’t going to do a whole lot in the big picture

Aircraft carriers are the offensive punch of the Navy and to say we only need 3 on station is dramatically
making us weaker.

You might was well say the Air Force should retire all but 10 of its bombers because they only really need 3 to be available.

“In many ways the late cold war roles are being reversed. We are trapped wasting money on military nostalgia just as the Russian military lived in constant memory of the Great Patriotic War, while the Chinese economy surpasses us based on balanced spending and a global outlook. Just as Russian economic influence was no match for American the Chinese are beating us hands down around the world.”

…shi*** ..I couldn’t have said better!!

Hey bigRick, …would you start a war with someone that have far more carriers than you? .…even if not immediately available? .… that would be suicide unless the ration of chinese carriers to US wold be 0.5. Plus, don’t forget the that US will soon count with 2 more brand new carriers from UK. Besides, India would love to play a ride in the US side.…
more important than carriers would be to have Russia on the side.…that would be check mate to China. …as before aliances are very important.

No, almost all the analysis you see in the US about China is recognition that China is moving from a regional power to a world superpower & that the ‘competition’ between China & the US (not to mention China’s ever increasingly aggressive stance towards Taiwan) COULD lead to conflict. Add to that the reality that (as much as some wish to think otherwise) Chins IS NOT our friend & the possibilities for conflict between China & the US become even greater.

BUT the US should guard against concentrating too much on China (almost as much as it should guard against concentrating too much on COIN) or risk finding itself prepared for the wrong conflict & ill-prepared for the (then) current one.

It would only be suicide it those carriers were available and close by. The world is big place, we can”t be everywhere at once. Carriers are the fastest ships in the fleet but they aren’t going to leave their escorts behind so they might be able to sustain 25knots for long periods. If they go faster the escorts will burn through their fuel too quickly.
But in he end, all war is a gamble done by gamblers. For example, if China decides to take Taiwan and we have no resources (CBG) nearby or within a few days sailing time, then yes they might risk it knowing that once they take the island it would much harder and costly for the US to get it back
If we only have one CBG then China might be able to do something about it and they still might go for it because they will have numbers on their side.
If we have two or more CBG in the area China’s problems multiply exponentially and they more then likely wouldn’t risk it
We won’t see the UK carriers for another 10 years if ever.
India might be able to play a small role
Russians? forget about it. They will never help us out

Hey bigRick, my suggestion of eight was predicated on the assumption that some other potential hot spots where carriers might be needed are no longer an issue before 8 “probably” could work for us. That means 8 would “probably” not be appropriate if we don’t manage to bring at least one or both of the Iran/Nork issues to a close. Perhaps re-read what I wrote and think before you type.

And, lest we forget, India is estimated to pass China in both numbers of people and manufacturing capabilities.

India is a bit of a joke compared to China. Far more disorganized and corrupt. If sheer number of uneducated people was the metric then Nigeria would have been a superpower long ago.

But Indians are excellent salesmen and know exactly how to tell Americans what they want to hear. It’s just funny to see neocons being lead down the garden path.

Yep, no corruption in China at all. I just checked Chinese Google and there has never been any sort of political scandal or murder of their own populace ever. Surely they would never lie, would they?

What 3 carriers in Norfolk and San Diego. Of the Norfolk carriers, 2 are deployed, 2 are at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth and 1 is at Newport News, On the west Coast, 2 are deployed, 1 is in dry dock at Bremerton, 1 is at Yokosuka, 1 is at Everett and 1 is on work ups in Eastpac.

Was there last year for a Naval relative’s wedding and took a tour of Norfolk. It startled me to see 3 carriers parked side by side. Shortly thereafter, saw a picture of the same thing in San Diego. It bugged me because Army guys have been deploying 12 months every other year for a decade. Naval and Air Force 6 month tours are less dangerous and stressful to families. It also seems unwise to have all naval aircraft at just two primary locations.

11 carriers ties up nearly 70,000 personnel in direct carrier group force structure, not to mention the folks supports their bases? And yet there is talk of cutting Army force structure to afford procurement/life cycle costs of next gen bombers and $28–32 billion carriers, not to mention $7 billion subs, and several billion destroyers.…all because of a single Pacific threat deterred by nukes and economic interdependence.

And imagine how dumb it would be to have single tanks and Bradleys carrying 100 guys and making big targets. After DF-21Ds and diesel electric subs do their thing, those amphibious ships might come in handy. Maybe not having extra carriers nearby would preclude a surprise attack. Can’t carriers attack from the Indian ocean? Diego Garcia is there also and agree with sferrin that more Pacific island airfields farther from TBM could survive with jammers/multi-spectral smoke.

There is no hurry to beat the Chinese if they were dumb enough to attack Taiwan. Between blockades of Straits, destruction of ports/airfields and infrastructure, lots of sunk vessels enroute to Taiwan, lost U.S. sales and bond worth, and their own major insurgency to deal with…life would suck for them.

Opine
Having spent some 18 out of 23 years WestPac, I offer this RE alignment opine.
1. Guam and the Marianas Islands attendant need to be the HUB. USAF, USN, USMC forces all have adequate Land Areas for training, forces, and Logistics.
2. Phillipines, with attendant cooperation from the PI Government, folks on the islands, should be Second Hub. Provides a multiple faceted force area for blocking the China South Sea infiltration. Meets USN, USAF Logistics needs.
3. Japan, NK, Okinawa Islands and areas form 3rd force blocking areas. Forces already established, need to be re aligned for Logistics and Ready Alert capabilities. There are multiple bases that could and should be closed down. We have been in these areas far too long. China is looking SOUTH not North.
end
Semper FI

Addl Thought
1. The Southern reaches of the Pacific, the old Australian, Solomons lifeline, seems to be left out of the equation. This ship Logistics line still functions today, as Cruise Liners ply these seas. If China actually becomes as active as the Prognosticators imply, the Straits off the Great Barrier reef, the Indonesion, Java, and Sumatra areas become areas of contention.
end
Semper FI

I regret that I have but 1 thumbs up to give.

I agree completely with your remarks, I wish we (Australia) still had our little carriers for this very reason, it was also the reason for the 12 new subs promised by our last PM, unfortunately it’s looking like that may not happen now, if they don’t start the design process soon (because of a tight budget) the old subs will be retired before the new ones come online, we may just have to buy fewer subs off the shelf. *rolls eyes*

Will New Zealand ever come back and be an active player in a revised alliance? Even for a logistics base?

NZs problems are with US Nuclear assets (reactors on ships, SLBMs in subs), if you keep those out of NZ territory they probably wouldn’t mind operating as a logistics base, or even as a staging area for troops/non-nuke ships.

Well said.

Speaking from personal experience dealing with Indians, the general rule of thumb is..take whatever they say they are going to do or can do…cut it in half and divide by two.
The result will be much, much closer to reality than their quote.

Added thoughts
The IJN Co Prosperity Sphere circa 1935–1945, governed by thier Samari Warrior Iron Fist, is probably not an apt 21st century comparator.

The Pacific regions are so vast, so littered with Colonial Influences, coupled with a desire to marry up with the Muslim/Islamic desires, that a USA USN Australian coalition may well be the answer.

The US has always historicaly flirted with the idea of using the Island bases, the coastal regions, and the entire basin as being a US lake of influence. Resources here are largely unexplored, which adds fuel to the interest fire.
Re alignment of US forces, the cost, the need, is a really vast study. The US and the Aussies Think Tanks need to bear down hard on this issue, as the Chinese already have the edge.
end
Semper Fi

The Islands mentioned, Tinian, Tarawa, Makin, Wake, Palua, Truk, Saipan, Kwaj, are all minute specks. Water less in most cases, far too small even to support a Loggie base.

The Marianas holds the key. These islands have Governance, resources, and land area. The Old Co Prosperity Sphere the IJN held, was built up, maintained and eventuall lost, over a period of some 60 odd years. The WW1 League of Nations mandates, after the Re Alignment of the 1920s ceded much of these islands to Japan.

We live in a 21 st century technology driven world. Pacific Island bases serve as stepping stones, not Loggie bases. There are exceptions, but the old Resource driven Colonial needs dont apply.
end
Semper FI

>The Pacific regions are so vast, so littered with Colonial Influences, coupled with a desire to marry up with the Muslim/Islamic desires, that a USA USN Australian coalition may well be the answer.

Really nothing like the reality.

China is/has flexed its muscle “within its sphere of influence”. Go back a few months and you will note that China strong armed the Philippines (and other south east Asian countries) from attending the presentation of the Nobel Peace prize in Stockholm to the Chinese national. There is no more Clark AFB and no more Subic Bay although we might get in a ship once in a while to boost the economy of Olongapo. We cannot afford to consider the Phillipines able or willing to side with USA. If we cannot sail our carriers for fear of Chinese attack in that stretch of ocean with the PRC on one side and Taiwan on the other, then we have already lost the first round. Realignment eastwards is another sign of weakness and another round the Chinese will have won. And where does this end? A total embargo on imports from the PRC! Except the Chinese are making the wings for the Boeing “Dreamliner”. I guess that would be left off any embargo.

No problems so long as there are no nukes within NZ territorial waters, If the US had simply said, “There is no Nuclear material on these ships” then there would be no restrictions to their sailing in. It was the US “Neither Confirm or Deny” policy on Nukes on ships that caused All US warships to be banned from NZ waters. Conventionally powered and conventionally armed ships are still welcome now, and always have been, The US Navy has just never wanted to say the magic words because of their tactical doctrine…

As to local defence, Singapore and Malaysia do a lot of cross training in NZ, there’s commonly a Singaporean artillery unit training in Waioru army base almost every year as there’s not much land mass in Singapore, and the local fishers protest when they do off-shore firing practice, so much of their arty units train in NZ. 155mm FRH-77 howitzers IIRC. NZ P3 Orions train with the Pacific Island countries as well, so if the US needed to base anti-sub birds in the islands, most of the local ground crews know where to find the fuel ports now :D even if the islands in question only have a cessna 152 as presidential VIP planes as their whole air force :D

The Pacific Islands really do not like Australia much, the long time “White Australia” policy really pissed them off a lot over the years. Fijians and Tongans and Samoans and the rest just plain despise Australia as a nation, even while individual islanders may well like individual Australians, the Cultures are just too set against each other.
They’ll gladly take Australian Aid dollars, like the cheap Aust Govt subsidised patrol boats from Tenix shipbuilding, and sneer at the givers all the while. A US-AU pacific defence/influence coalition would go down like a lead balloon in the Pacific.

How many hits from cruise missiles can a carrier sustain without either going down of ending up in dry dock for a couple of years? Could a carrier task force survive a time on target strike of a 100 cruise and anti-ship missiles? Guam and Whitman AFB are one hit nuclear targets. We need to put a good deal more thought into our future capabilities, espcially against an assymetric chinese Offensive.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement