President Trump must urgently pick up his phone and wake up defense secretary Patrick Shanahan. Because the United States has a big problem: forced to fight our most capable adversary, our forces would likely lack what they need to win.
The potential adversary is China, and the shortfall is critical munition stocks and attack submarines. That’s my takeaway from testimony given by the commander of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, Adm. Philip Davidson, to the House Armed Services Committee last week.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., asked whether Davidson had sufficient munition stocks (bombs and missiles). Davidson didn’t pull any punches: “stocks, in the theater, of critical munitions supplies is a challenge and an ongoing challenge. And one of my consistent requests of the department [is getting more] … as well as the [improved] ability to resupply out there.”
What are these critical needs? Well, Davidson’s written statement clarifies that his priority is more “Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles, SM-6, MK-48 torpedoes, AIM-9X, BGM-109 Block IV (Maritime Strike Tomahawk), and AIM-120D” platforms in particular. You can read a lot out of that. Those weapons center on long-range capabilities that would allow the U.S. to destroy Chinese ships, planes, and forward deployed bases from afar. It’s a critical focus in that China retains a similar long-range strike capability. And if China can kill our forces from far away and we can’t kill theirs, well, we have a problem.
Navy veteran Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., also fleshed out a broader problem: the Navy’s shortage of resupply elements that would deliver these weapons to frontline forces. Thus, we have the first part of Trump’s necessary call to Shanahan. Trump should say, “No excuses, get Davidson his weapons, and better means of rapid, survivable resupply. Take the money from other programs if necessary.”
The second part of Trump’s phone call should center on getting Davidson more attack submarines. Davidson’s opening statement noted that his shortage of attack submarines “risks our [war plans]” and neglects an “asymmetric advantage” the U.S. otherwise retains in undersea warfare. Asked by Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., how significant his shortage is, Davidson said he has “slightly over 50 percent of what I’ve asked for.” While Courtney’s question might not be wholly objective (his district encompasses a major submarine production base), his concern stands on merit.
Considering many NATO allies currently fail to use their navies effectively, Trump should demand that they free up those ships and submarines to better assist NATO’s commander. That done, I believe Davidson should retain at least 70 percent of the total U.S. attack submarine force (we need the rest in the Atlantic shadowing Russian nuclear ballistic missile submarines).
But the hearing also made clear that we don’t have enough submarines in total. That also needs to be addressed. But how?
Well, for one, the Navy needs to abandon its rigidly inefficient deployment structure. But Pentagon leaders also need to break their addiction to aircraft carriers. When it comes to our major 21st century adversary, China, the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers represent $13 billion platforms that can’t get close to the enemy, but can be destroyed from far away by Chinese long range missiles. The Navy says it can handle this threat, but I’m not convinced. What happens if the Chinese launch 30 independently targeted Dong Feng missiles against one carrier? If just a few reach the carrier, we have the tactical loss of a carrier and potentially 6,000 American lives. It gets worse. Because that tactical loss might then translate into a war-losing strategic loss if those casualties damage America’s resolve to fight.
As I say, Trump has got to jolt the system into action here.
Fortunately it’s not all bad news. The U.S. military is battle hardened, and the Chinese military is not. We also find increasing support for our Indo-Pacific strategy (thanks, Jim Mattis) from Britain and other close allies. China is also not-so-cleverly pushing the world’s most populous democracy, India, closer to America. But Davidson’s words demand action.
On our current course, if America is forced to fight China next week, there is a very real possibility we’ll run out of weapons, and find ourselves unable to maximize our submarine warfare advantage. Trump likes to win. This ain’t winning.
