China expanding its reach into the Indian Ocean

Over the past years the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) of China has been increasing its presence in the Indian Ocean. Given the competitive nature of relations between India and China as well as India’s own ambition to be the sole dominant naval power in the Indian Ocean, it is of vital interest to comprehend China’s ambitions in this region. With two of the emerging superpowers capable of projecting power in the Indian Ocean as well as the vital maritime trade routes situated in this area, any potential conflict can have far reaching consequences.

The Area

The Indian Ocean forms the maritime bridge between the EU and the Far East and many maritime trade routes pass through this area. Dominating this area is the Indian subcontinent, thrusting into the Indian Ocean. This places India in an optimum position to project power in all directions. Many strategic choke points such as the Strait of Malacca or the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb can both be easily monitored or blocked by the Indian Navy.

Because of its position and capabilities it seems logical to entrust the Indian Navy with policing this area of the world but as discussed below, China sees things differently.

Main position of maritime trade routes between China and Europe

 

Chinese ambitions and concerns

The PLAN is a fast rising power that is transforming into a blue water navy capable of projecting power far away. Unlike the EU, which is only projecting its maritime power to the shore of Somalia to combat piracy, China is seeking a more active role when it comes to securing its maritime trade routes.

Piracy around the Horn of Africa prompted the PLAN to join the international effort to combat this threat to maritime trade. At the time this was a remarkable decision by China because it lacked the naval experience to participate in an international operation. It did however show that China is willing to go to great lengths to protect its vital trade routes, not only for the trade with the EU but also its energy supply coming out the Middle East. Over the past years the PLAN has become a constant factor in the anti-piracy mission. The missions allowed the PLAN to gain valuable experience in operating far away from home and helped in the transformation of the PLAN into a blue water navy. At the same time China has been capable of bolstering ties with several nations in the Indian Ocean to expand its economic and political influence.

The string of pearls

Over the past years China has become involved in several smaller countries around India. Its activities are mainly economical such as building and expanding ports in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Although all these projects are economic in nature, mainly driven to expand the trading capabilities of friendly nations, there is the possibility that the new port facilities can be used as military naval bases to support a permanent PLAN presence in the Indian Ocean. This is mainly a concern India has who views the String of Pearls as a means to surround India with Chinese naval bases and challenge India for control over the Indian Ocean. So far, none of these ports have served as a permanent naval base but Chinese warships are using these ports to dock and resupply while on mission in the Indian Ocean.

The big question what everybody is asking is whether or not the String of Pearls will one day become a chain of military bases on to what extend the PLAN will operate in the Indian Ocean.

String of Pearls: Chinese port building/expanding projects surounding India

Future projection of Chinese ambitions

China is a rising superpower and it has the tools to project power. The past years have seen an increase of PLAN naval activity, not only within the First Island Chain but in the Indian Ocean as well. Rival tensions between India and China will force the PLAN to operate in the Indian Ocean and be able to confront the Indian Navy. From a Chinese point of view, the geography of the Indian Ocean puts India in a main position to block the Chinese trade lines running through the Indian Ocean. China depends heavily on the import of energy and raw materials coming out of the Middle East and Africa and is no doubt looking for means to secure these supply lines against any kind of enemy intervention. As such, the Indian Ocean will be part of China’s strategic policy for the future.

However China, and by extension the PLAN, are caught on a two front war. Its rivalry with the United States forces China to concentrate its resources in the western Pacific. Aggressive territorial claims in the East and South China Seas put China in a confrontation with its neighbors, almost all of them are backed by the United States. This all leaves only little amount of military hardware available to be used in the Indian Ocean.

As such, the Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean will be limited as the most modern ships such as aircraft carriers, modern destroyers and nuclear submarines will all be needed to confront the United States Navy and its pacific allies. The less modern and less advanced ships will therefor make up the bulk of forces China will have available for service in the Indian Ocean.

With only a limited force that can be deployed in the Indian Ocean China will have only two options available to keep its presence in the Indian Ocean as high as possible. A first option is looking for allies. The navy of Pakistan seems like a good ally for China as it can bind a large portion of the Indian Navy. Already the cooperation between both navies is visible with China building frigates for Pakistan.

A second option for China is to have permanent bases in the Indian Ocean. Transforming the String of Pearls from an economic endeavor into a string of military bases allows China to more efficiently protect its trade routes against any Indian intervention. At the same time, fully equipped military bases with repair facilities allow Chinese warships to operate over extended periods of time in the Indian Ocean before they are forced to head back to Chinese naval bases located on the Chinese coast for modernization or complicated repairs.

Although the String of Pearls are far from a chain of military bases, any future development of these Chinese projects that make up the string of pearls is worth noticing and analyzing in order to grasp China’s intentions concerning its presence in the Indian Ocean.

If the String of Pearls one day develops into Chinese military
bases then China would be in a favourable position to interfere
with the naval movements of India

EU’s military shipbuilding capacities

The European Union (EU) consists of 28 member states, all of them deciding on their own what military hardware their armed forces require. The direct result of this is that the EU has a large number of defense companies that can deliver a wide arrange of different military hardware. This diversity can clearly be seen in all the branches of armed forces (army, air force and navy). When it comes down to navies, this diversity in military hardware can be both an enrichment and a limitation.

All EU member states that have a navy are forced to equip it as they themselves see fit. In the absence of one unified EU navy there are no guidelines or orders telling what navy a country should develop and contribute to the EU navy. As such the navies of the EU member states are designed to fulfill their own needs. While the United Kingdom and France are still planning to have ocean going fleets that can operate in both the Atlantic and Indian Oceans other states are looking to operate closer at home. Italy and Spain have their main focus on the Mediterranean while Sweden and Poland are looking to operate in the Baltic Sea. The tiny Baltic states invest in protecting the coastal waters as well as in mine-countermeasure ships to clear the large minefields that are a left over from both the second World War and the Cold War. Likewise Belgium has a main priority to keep its waters, and in extension the North Sea clear of unexploded sea mines and bombs from the second World War. The Netherlands on the other side are giving priority to their expeditionary capabilities, being their marines and amphibious assault ships,as well as maintaining a complete amphibious task force to escort and protect their marines in their zone of operations.

 

All these different tasks and missions result in the need for ships that are best suited for these tasks. Ships built for service in the Baltic Sea are not ideally equipped for operating in the hot Mediterranean environment and vice versa. Mine hunters and minesweepers are too small to operate on or transit the oceans and prefer to stay near the coast. European shipyards therefore are specialized in building ships that suit the specific needs of a nation. Even more than this, the direct competition between these shipyards allow the EU member states to select or request the most optimal ships thy need.

 

All these different ship models, each with their own specifications and limitations, are interfering with the creation of an EU navy. Taking a logistics point of view, any EU navy is in need of standardizing its ships not only for providing repair facilities and delivery of spare parts in any EU naval base, but for planning reasons as well. Operating with identical ships or ships with the same specifications simplifies planning compared to taking in account a lot of different specifications like range, endurance, weaponry, electronic capabilities, etc.

 

FREMM frigate: Both the French and Italian navy use the same basic design.
Specific requirements defined by each nation makes that these ships are not completly identical

Hence the EU’s greatest strength, being able to develop and build a wide array of ships tailor made to specific needs, will in the end become its greatest limitation in creating one uniform EU navy. The EU is in need of standardizing its equipment in order to allow the navies of the different member states to integrate more directly and being able to form ad hoc task forces that can be managed easily. Already some member states are cooperating in attempts to create uniform navies. The FREMM project is a type of frigate that is in joint use by the French and Italian navies, allowing them to work more closely. Likewise, Belgium and the Netherlands each operate two M-type frigates to enhance their cooperation.

These projects are already a step in the right direction but what any future EU navy would need is an end to this wild diversity in ships and start streamlining its shipbuilding capabilities in only a handful of different types of ships to increase cooperation, logistics and simplifying planning of naval operations throughout the EU and the waters it has taken an interest in.

 

Overview of Europe’s aircraft carriers

When it comes to bringing considerable firepower to a distant battlefield nothing beats an aircraft carrier as the most dominant tool of power projection. Capable of transporting a certain amount of aircraft freely across the globe, only dependeding replenishment at sea to sustain its operations, the aircraft carrier allows countries to execute airstrikes almost wherever and whenever they want or need it. Unlike aircraft based on land, Carrier-based aircraft operate from a secure base at sea only to be threatened by the naval assets of an opponent it is always protected by a carrier battle group that is tailor made to give a carrier the maximum of protection.

Of all the aircraft carrier forcess in the world the US Navy is the most dominant. It operates 10 nuclear powered Nimitz class carriers, each capable of transporting and operating the amount of aircraft that is equal in size to a medium sized country’s air force.

As aircraft carriers are the most dominant tools of power projection it is no wonder that every serious navy tries to build and operate them. India and Russia are both long term carrier operators and China has made its successful first steps in operating a carrier and plans to build more of them. So in light of established and rising sea powers, each with the tools of projecting power and influence across large areas of the world, what are the carrier forces the European Union (EU) can count on and in extension, the carrier forces that the EU can use in NATO operations.?

United Kingdom

Once the world’s biggest navies, the Royal Navy has been suffering from major budget cutbacks. At the moment, the UK has no operational carriers in its service. It is however currently building two conventional powered carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class. With 65.000 tons, these ships are at the limit of tonnage for conventional powered carrier although the design has taken in account that over her service life the carrier could be remodeled and have a displacement of 70.600 tons. The 70.600 ton displacement puts this carrier at the limit of what can be conventionally powered without reducing its speed too much. Anything bigger would be insufficient powered and move to slow to create enough wind over the decks to launch aircraft, unless a nuclear propulsion plant is installed.

The first ship, the HMS Queen Elizabeth was officially named on the 4^th of July 2014 and will be commissioned in 2017. The second ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, will be commissioned in 2020.

Both ships will have a planned carrier air group of 36 F-35’s and 4 helicopters. However, delivery of the F-35 to the Royal Navy is only scheduled to happen in 2020 so both carriers will only become fully operational in 2020 and off course that is if the F-35 program isn’t cancelled due to its high cost and many drawbacks and failures.

France

Of all the EU’s nations, France is the only nation with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and indeed the only nation in the world besides the United States to operate a nuclear powered carrier. The Charles De Gaulle has a displacement of 42.000 tons, making her very small for a nuclear powered carrier that could sustain a weight of 3 times more. Launched in 1994 and commissioned in 2001 this carrier has a lifetime that can span into the 2040-2050 time-frame before the carrier is worn down and forced to be decommissioned.

The carrier air group of this carrier is composed of 28 – 40 aircraft, depending on what the composition of the air group is. The main fighter aircraft on board is the Rafale, backed up by  E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.

France normally operated two aircraft carriers in order to make sure that at least one was available when the other underwent repairs or modernization programs. As of 2013 however, the French government decided to scrap the plans for building a second aircraft carrier due to the high costs and budget restraints.

Charles de Gaulle, the EU's only nuclear aircraft carrier: Layout of flight and hangar deck

Italy

Italy operates 2 small carriers, the Giuseppe Garibaldi and the Cavour.

The Giuseppe Garibaldi is STOVL carrier with a displacement of 14.000 tons and commissioned in 1985. Her carrier air group is composed of 18 AV-8B Harrier aircraft.

The Cavour was commissioned in 2009, has a displacement of up to 30.000 tons fully loaded. Her carrier air group is smaller in size then the one of the Giuseppe Garibaldi with only  8 AV-8B Harrier aircraft or 15 F-35B’s in addition to her 10 helicopters. Although termed as a carrier, the Cavour can also double as a landing platform helicopter (LPH) amphibious warship. If given a 40 to 50 year lifespan for a capital ship undergoing proper maintenance then Italy could operate the Giuseppe Garibaldi until the 2025-2035 time-frame and the Cavour until the 2050-2060 time-frame.

Spain

Spain only operates one ship that can function as an aircraft carrier, the Juan Carlos I. Although in design the ship is an amphibious assault ship, her ski-jump ramp on the bow enables it to operate STOVL aircraft.  Conventionally powered and with a displacement of 26.000 tons this ship can serve as a light aircraft carrier with a carrier wing of 10 to 12 AV-8B Harrier aircraft or F-35B’s in addition to 10 helicopters. As the ship has been commissioned in 2010, it will be operational, if probably maintained, for the 2040-2050 time-frame as its projected lifespan is envisioned as maximum 40 years.

The Juan Carlos I design has been opted by Turkey as the basis to build an amphibious warship for the Turkish Navy. Although Turkey plans to use the ship as an amphibious assault ship to assist in humanitarian ops, it would give Turkey also a platform to operate aircraft from should the circumstances require it. In this case, NATO could count on one more carrier in its alliance that operates in European waters

Conclusion

Only 4 nations are capable of giving the EU the tools for projection power with aircraft carriers and unlike their massive US counterparts these aircraft carriers are small in comparison. Of the 6 carriers in total, only 1 is nuclear powered and 2 are not available until 2020, giving the EU at the moment only 4 small carriers. Cuts in defense budgets among the EU member states have deprived the EU of deploying hard power when it is needed. This was seen clearly during the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya where only the Charles de Gaulle and the Cavour operated as EU carriers.

Due to the resurgence of Russia at the EU's borders, resulting in the Ukraine crisis, and other nearby crises in the Mediterranean such as Libya and Syria, as well as Iraq further into the Middle east and a potential showdown in the Arctic, the EU finds itself in a weak position to back up its military power. Like all European defense projects and the creation of a EU army, the creation of a EU navy will be very troublesome and will face many delays. However, should the EU succeed in creating a EU navy it will be one that finds itself deprived of the hard power tools such as carriers to project its power across the oceans.

Country	Ships	Aircraft
UK	HMS Queen Elizabeth HMS Prince of Wales	36 F-35B 36 F-35B
France	Charles de Gaulle	20-40 Rafale
Italy	Giuseppe Garibaldi Cavour	18 AV-8B Harrier aircraft 8 AV-8B Harrier aircraft  or 15 F-35B
Spain	Juan Carlos I	10-12 AV-8B Harrier aircraft
TOTAL	6 carriers	72-87 F-35B 28-38 AV-8B Harrier aircraft 20-40 Rafale

Table I: Overview of the EU aircraft carriers and their carrier air groups

 

Placing China's Type 055 cruiser in perspective

In an earlier report we mentioned China planning to build a cruiser, the Type 055. At the time the main speculation was about what kind of role this Type 055 cruiser would play in future operations and whether the Chinese would go for a defensive setup in which the Type 055 would protect capital ships or whether China would still deploy the ship in accordance with Soviet naval tactics and use it as an offensive weapon releasing a large amount of missiles on enemy ships.

Recent statements by Mister Fang Bing, a military expert from PLA National Defense University, have given us new insights on how China plans the shape its navy. At the moment China’s most modern destroyer, the Type 052D, serves as the warship the People Liberation Army Navy (PLAN, Chinese Navy) is using to protect its capital ships. Even though the Type 052D guided-missile destroyer is an impressive opponent for China’s enemies to be faced with it still lacks the capacity to carry a lot of firepower. The Type 052D only has 64 vertical launch systems (VLS) compared to 96 on an US Navy Arleigh-Burke class destroyer and a Japanese Kongo class destroyer, and compared to the South Korean Sejong the Great class destroyer with 128 VLS .

Type 055: The design resembles a US Navy Arleigh-Burke class destroyer

These figures makes it painfully clear that China’s main rivals all have destroyers that are better armed. As such, China seeks to build warships with a bigger missile capacity. A 10.000 ton destroyer is proposed, compared to the 7.500 tons of a Type 052D class destroyer. These figures coincide with the speculated numbers of China’s Type 055 cruiser. The Type 055 should weigh around 12.000 tons and have a missile capacity of 128 VLS, giving it the same capacity as the Sejong the Great class.

Although at 12.000 tons, the Type 055 qualifies more as a cruiser then a destroyer, it should be noted that all of the mentioned destroyers, except for the Type 052D, weigh above 10.000 tons when fully armed and loaded. As such, a Type 055 can be also be called a destroyer, albeit a very large one but then again, the US Navy Zumwalt class destroyers come in at 14.500 tons .

Comparing weight and missile capacity with other ships it seems that China’s Type 055 cruiser concept is more of large modern destroyer. Even more important is the recent news that China not only plans to build a 10.000 ton destroyer but that these ships are meant to replace the Type 052D destroyers. The Type 052D currently serves to protect the PLANs capital ships, such as aircraft carriers and they are speculated to be the core of China’s carrier battle group. As such, the Type 055 would serve as a defensive warship, protecting capital ships against incoming threats like missiles, aircraft, submarines and ships. This shows that China is changing its tactics and doctrines and is copying the US Navy style of how to make and operate carrier battle groups. This also means that China would appear to abandon the Soviet missile doctrine in which destroyers and cruisers are meant to be offensive units to charge at enemy warships and unleash a large barrage of missiles once within range.

Conclusion

China’s Type 055 cruiser design turns out to be more of an attempt to build a large and modern destroyer. When compared to similar vessels of the US, Japanese and South Korean navies the Type 055 has both the same weight as missile capability. Although initially reported to be a cruiser its weight of 10.000 or even 12.000 tons makes it balance somewhere between a destroyer and a cruiser. Still, the Type 055 might be the final step that China needs to take to design warships equal to its rivals and therefor close the technological gap between the PLAN and its main rivals.

Intended to be the replacement of the Type 052D, the Type 055 might become the backbone ship in a carrier task force to protect China’s aircraft carriers against enemy threats. As such, the PLAN is mimicking the US Navy in how to set up a carrier battle group and marks the shift between an offensive Soviet missile tactic to a more modern western style of naval tactics.