Chinese Mine Warfare: a PLA Navy 'Assassin's Mace' Capability

U.S. Naval War College U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons CMSI Red Books China Maritime Studies Institute 6-2009 Chinese Mine Warfare: A PLA Navy 'Assassin's Mace' Capability Andrew S. Erickson William S. Murray Lyle J. Goldstein Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cmsi-red-books Recommended Citation Erickson, Andrew S.; Murray, William S.; and Goldstein, Lyle J., "Chinese Mine Warfare: A PLA Navy 'Assassin's Mace' Capability" (2009). CMSI Red Books, Study No. 3. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the China Maritime Studies Institute at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in CMSI Red Books by an authorized administrator of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE CHINA MARITIME STUDIES Number 3 U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE COLLEGE WAR NAVAL U.S. Chinese Mine Warfare A PLA Navy ‘Assassin’s Mace’ Capability CHINA MARITIME STUDIES No. 3 MARITIME STUDIES No. CHINA Andrew S. Erickson, Lyle J. Goldstein, and William S. Murray Chinese Mine Warfare A PLA Navy ‘Assassin’s Mace’ Capability Andrew S. Erickson, Lyle J. Goldstein, and William S. Murray CHINA MARITIME STUDIES INSTITUTE U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island www.usnwc.edu/cnws/cmsi/default.aspx Naval War College The China Maritime Studies are extended research projects Newport, Rhode Island that the editor, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the Center for Naval Warfare Studies President of the Naval War College consider of particular China Maritime Study No. 3 interest to policy makers, scholars, and analysts. June 2009 Correspondence concerning the China Maritime Studies President, Naval War College may be addressed to the director of the China Maritime Rear Admiral James P. Wisecup, U.S. Navy Studies Institute, www.usnwc.edu/cnws/cmsi/default Provost .aspx. To request additional copies or subscription consid- Amb. Mary Ann Peters eration, please direct inquiries to the President, Code 32A, Dean of Naval Warfare Studies Naval War College, 686 Cushing Road, Newport, Rhode Is- Robert C. Rubel land 02841-1207, or contact the Press staff at the telephone, Director of China Maritime Studies Institute fax, or e-mail addresses given. Dr. Lyle J. Goldstein Reproduction and printing is subject to the Copyright Act Naval War College Press of 1976 and applicable treaties of the United States. This Director: Dr. Carnes Lord document may be freely reproduced for academic or other Managing Editor: Pelham G. Boyer noncommercial use; however, it is requested that reproduc- tions credit the author and China Maritime Studies series Telephone: 401.841.2236 and that the Press editorial office be informed. To obtain Fax: 401.841.3579 permission to reproduce this publication for commercial DSN exchange: 948 purposes, contact the Press editorial office. E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.usnwc.edu/press ISSN 1943-0817 Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-1-884733-63-5 The views elaborated herein are those of the authors alone. They do not represent the official viewpoints of the U.S. Navy or any other organization of the U.S. government. The authors thank Rear Admiral John N. Christenson, USN, Rear Admiral Chuck Horne, USN (Ret.), Dr. Kyrill Korolenko, Rear Admiral Deborah Loewer, USN (Ret.), Captain Robert Mirick, USN (Ret.), Mr. George Pollitt, Mr. Ron Swart, and Dr. Scott Truver for their incisive comments and support. A preliminary portion of this study’s findings was published as Andrew Erickson, Lyle Goldstein, and William Murray, “China’s ‘Undersea Sentries’: Sea Mines Constitute Lead Element of PLA Navy’s ASW,” Undersea Warfare 9 (Winter 2007), pp. 10–15, and is available at http://www.navy.mil/ navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_33/china.html. All photographs obtained with permission from China Defense Forum. Chinese Mine Warfare A PLA Navy ‘Assassin’s Mace’ Capability fter a lengthy hiatus—lasting nearly six centuries—China is reemerging as a Amaritime power, this time with an emphasis on undersea warfare. Between 1996 and 2006, the Chinese navy took delivery of more than thirty submarines.1 These ves- sels include two new classes of nuclear submarines—the advanced Song-class diesel submarines and the Yuan class of diesel boats—which, according to some reports, was a surprise for U.S. intelligence.2 Above and beyond this ambitious naval construction pro- gram, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) received during 2005–06 an additional eight formidable Kilo-class submarines (and associated weaponry), which were purchased in 2002, to add to the four it already operated. A new nuclear submarine base on Hainan Island may well herald a new era of more extended Chinese submarine operations. Much discussion among East Asian security analysts now centers on Beijing’s potential development and deployment of aircraft carriers. However, at least in the near term, this discussion amounts to a red herring. For the foreseeable future, China does not seek to “rule the waves” writ large but rather is seeking the much narrower and more realizable objective of dominating the East Asian littoral. While photos of a first Chinese carrier will no doubt cause a stir, the Chinese navy has in recent times focused much attention upon a decidedly more mundane and nonphotogenic arena of naval warfare: sea mines. This focus has, in combination with other asymmetric forms of naval warfare, had a significant impact on the balance of power in East Asia. People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) strategists contend that sea mines are “easy to lay and difficult to sweep; their concealment potential is strong; their destructive power is high; and the threat value is long-lasting.”3 Key objectives for a Chinese offensive mine strategy would be “blockading enemy bases, harbors and sea lanes; destroying enemy sea transport capabilities; attacking or restricting warship mobility; and crippling and exhausting enemy combat strength.”4 For future littoral warfare, it is said that “sea mines constitute the main threat [主要威胁] to every navy, and especially for carrier battle groups and submarines.”5 Moreover, this emphasis corresponds to the PLAN evaluation that “relative to other combat mission areas, [the U.S. Navy’s] mine warfare capabilities are extremely weak.”6 Chinese naval strategists note that of eighteen warships lost or seriously damaged since World War II, fourteen were struck by sea mines.7 As the PLA’s 2 CHINA MARITIME STUDIES newspaper has stated, “When military experts cast their gaze on the vast sea battle area . submarines attacking in concealment with torpedoes and the ingenious deployment of mines are still the main battle equipment of a modern navy.”8 The prominent role of “minelaying” in contemporary Chinese military doctrine is highlighted by the fact that this term was used no less than three times in China’s 2008 defense white paper.9 While many countries are vigorously studying mine countermeasures, few are so brazenly pursuing offensive mine warfare.10 Thus, for example, the 2006 edition of Science of Campaigns (Zhanyi Xue), an operationally and tactically focused Chinese doctrinal textbook, declares, “[We must] make full use of [units] . that can force their way into enemy ports and shipping lines to carry out minelaying on a grand scale.”11 In tandem with submarine capabilities, therefore, it now seems that China is engaged in a significant effort to upgrade its mine warfare prowess. Submarines are large and difficult to hide, and various intelligence agencies of other powers are no doubt attuned to the scope and dimensions of these important developments. By contrast, mine warfare (MIW) capabilities are easily hidden and thus constitute a true “assassin’s mace” (杀手锏 or 撒手锏)12—in the American metaphor, a “silver bullet” for the PLAN, a term some Chinese sources, including the PLAN itself,13 apply explicitly to MIW.14 Relying heavily on sea mines, the PLAN is already fully capable of blockading Taiwan and other crucial sea lines of communication in the western Pacific area. As Thomas Christensen writes, “The proximity of Taiwan to the mainland . Taiwan’s massive trade dependence . the inherent difficulty in clearing mines, and the extreme weakness of American mine-clearing capacity, particularly in [the Pacific] theater . all make blockade a tempting . strategy for . China.”15 Indeed, sea mines, used to complement a variety of other capabilities, constitute a deadly serious challenge to U.S. naval power in East Asia. In demonstrating the above conclusions, this study directly challenges the findings of another recently published research article, which argues that PRC mine warfare capabilities have been exaggerated and would not prove decisive in a Taiwan scenario.16 That study’s conclusions may have been reasonable at some time in the past, but they are now quite obsolete and risk obscuring a major threat to U.S. naval forces operating in the Asia-Pacific region. This paper will proceed in ten steps. First, there is a discussion of the Persian Gulf War as a catalytic moment for contemporary Chinese MIW. A second section develops this context further with an account of the little-known history of Chinese MIW. The next two sections consist of detailed descriptions of the PLAN mine inventory and the various means of delivery. A fifth section addresses the human factor in Chinese MIW development, outlining recent training and exercise patterns. The following section offers a provisional outline of the PLAN’s evolving MIW doctrine. The seventh section brings prospective mine countermeasures (MCM) programs into the strategic equation, CHINESE MINE WARFARE 3 and the eighth discusses specific scenarios of concern, especially the Taiwan blockade scenario, aiming for a comprehensive net assessment of the MIW component in the future Asia-Pacific maritime security environment.

Load more