US Navy looking at Japan, South Korea to counter China's military power

Shipbuilding is being included in the proposal by the United States (US) to relocate the repair of forward-deployed warships to Japan and South Korea in order to keep up with China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (proposal) expanding fleet.

Experts and decision-makers disagree on the suggestion, though. While some caution against the short-term economic effects of manufacturing leaving the country, others highlight the rapidity with which ships will be delivered to the USN to satisfy its needs right now.

Supporters of the proposal also highlight the advanced warships built by front-line allies Japan and South Korea (especially the former), which naturally complements those nations’ greater strategic, political, economic, and military cooperation with the US.

Related Articles

Taiwan’s last ‘comfort woman’ dies: The history of World War II sex slaves

US, Japan, South Korea to share N.Korean missile warning data before the year ends

Currently, according to the Pentagon, China’s PLA Navy has about 340 warships, compared to the US’s less than 300. It predicts that the Chinese fleet will increase to 400 ships in the following two years, whilst the US fleet won’t reach 350 ships until 2045.

According to a CNN article, China’s Type 055 destroyer is the most technologically sophisticated in the world. The Sejong the Great of South Korea and the Maya and Mogami destroyers of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) are praised in particular by observers for their sophistication in comparison to Chinese naval technology.

On the fringes of the recently finished Shangri La Dialogue, the paper cited military and diplomatic specialists who discussed the effects of the strategy. This comes after a previous revelation that US officials were contemplating Japan and South Korea for ship repairs rather than returning them to the US mainland and relieving the shipyards there of their workload.

The only battleships that match Chinese technology, according to Blake Herzinger, a research fellow at the United States Studies Centre in Australia, and Carl Schuster, a former director of operations at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Centre in Hawaii.

The 96 Vertical Launch Silo (VLS) cells of the Maya class, according to Alessio Patalano, a professor of war and strategy at King’s College in London, can also launch anti-ballistic missiles with “top-of-the-end sensors and systems.” The Japanese ship’s price of $2.2 billion is half that of the US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers while yet being on par with them.

Additionally, US technologies like the Aegis combat system and SPY radars are aboard Japanese and South Korean warships for interoperability. This makes the countries’ naval engineers better qualified to design warships for the US given their thorough knowledge with American systems.

A quick glance at the distinction of the development of the Japanese shipbuilding sector is also warranted given the country’s reputation as a proficient warship builder. Its naval architects established a legacy of adopting “sound” engineering and technological principles, giving rise to numerous powerful destroyers with sturdy hulls and cutting-edge sensors and armaments.

According to an article in The National Interest, Japan invested merely 1% of its GDP in defence yet nevertheless managed to create a state-of-the-art military-industrial manufacturing environment. Additionally, it made engineering choices for hull design, combined gas and gas (COGAG) power plants, and weaponry including VLS systems that were based on tried-and-true technical principles.

They eventually added modern hull designs and propulsion systems, like hybrid gas and electric and AESA radars, after extensive practise and complete mastery of these technologies.

“The US Navy must continually be reminded that great procurement programs are not born when the Navy attempts to squeeze an inordinate number of revolutionary technologies into one single program,” said the report.

Some analysts warn that current US rules, which forbid American ships from being built overseas or purchased from foreign shipbuilders, are “fraught” with “political” hazards. Others, however, contend that the sanctions would only be temporary until the US shipyards’ capacity difficulties were resolved and the urgent gap before China was satisfied.

The argument in favour of buying ships from foreign partners is supported by endemic problems in the American shipbuilding industry.

Four public shipyards, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbour Naval Shipyard, and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, are among the US’s seven naval shipbuilders. The US Navy’s major submarine constructor, General Dynamics Electric Boat, is located in Maine, along with Bath Iron Works in Maine and Huntington Ingalls in Virginia.

At an event in February this year, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro rated China’s shipyard capacity and shipbuilding capability far ahead of the US.

“They have 13 shipyards; in some cases, their shipyard has more capacity – one shipyard has more capacity than all of our shipyards combined. That presents a real threat,” he claimed.

US naval shipbuilding has faced challenges including a lack of skilled labour due to the high employment rates in the US, supply chain disruptions following the Covid scandal, and other financial and funding concerns.

In a report released in May 2022, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) accurately described the situation. The Navy’s preparedness is directly impacted by shipyard repair delays since they limit the Navy’s ability to perform training and operations. For instance, the GAO discovered in August 2020 that aircraft carrier maintenance delays from 2015 to 2019 caused the ships to be unavailable for 1,128 days.

This equates to losing more than 0.5 aircraft carriers in use annually. Overruns in maintenance caused submarines to be unavailable for a total of 6,296 days during the same time frame. More than three submarines would have been rendered useless annually as a result of this.

In the same year, the Navy launched the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimisation Plan (SIOP), a $21 billion, 20-year initiative to update and improve its shipyards.

However, the creation of specific shipbuilding blueprints won’t start until 2025. Their realisation is contingent on the ensuing and customary delays, starting with the start of the actual labour and financial allocation and ending with the unavoidable revision of timelines.

The lack of and ageing of essential shipyard infrastructure, such as dry docks, needs to be addressed. 17 of these docks are either in poor condition or would not be compatible with the newest generation of large ships, such as the aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class. The USN had predicted in 2018 that it would cost $4 billion to upgrade the 17 dry docks, but it later discovered that the cost of upgrading the first three dry docks alone had exceeded $4 billion.

It’s interesting that the estimate of $21 billion for the SIOP alone was made without taking many overheads into account. The initial SIOP estimate did not account for inflation, utilities, environmental remediation, or historical preservation; these expenses might add billions, according to the GAO assessment.

The poor condition of the USN’s shipyards has also been partially caused by the USN’s unfocused approach to its modernization programmes. Officials questioned by the GAO claim that the USN leadership frequently prioritises the purchase of platforms including ships, aircraft, and submarines “over facility sustainment because of their perceived greater importance in performing assigned missions.”

The manufacturing and engineering products sector includes a smaller subgroup called shipyard modernization and expansion. Capital equipment like cranes, sheet metal rollers, lathes, furnaces, and electrical tools are used in yards.

The majority of these are goods whose imports into the US have grown as a result of the fall in American manufacturing that has characterised the country’s socioeconomic, electoral, and foreign policy landscape during the past 20 years.

Some of these, according to research from the McKinsey Global Institute, are precision tools, car parts, semiconductors, medical gadgets, and communication technology. According to the company, the US’s percentage of global manufacturing has decreased from 25% to 17%.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.