Michael Cole wrote in The Diplomat recently about Chinese
Navy’s attack submarines operating in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), and the
possibility of it posing a serious threat to Indian interests. The IOR
stretches from the Horn of Africa to the Malacca Straits and southwards to the
West coast of Australia. His article was based on a report titled “Indian Navy:
Perceived Threats to Subsurface Deterrent Capability and Preparedness” prepared
by the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) of India’s Ministry of Defence (MOD). The
report warned that the “implicit focus” of the Peoples Liberation Army Navy
(PLAN) appeared to be undermining Indian navy’s ability to control the highly
sensitive sea lines of communication (SLOCs) in the region.
Citing subsurface contact data shared by US forces, the
document stated that at least 22 contacts were recorded with vessels suspected
to be Chinese attack submarines patrolling well outside Chinese territorial
waters. The document cites one contact with a suspected Chinese submarine took
place 90 km from Indian soil in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, while six took
place northwest of the Straits of Malacca, 13 south of Sri Lanka and two in the
Arabian Sea. The submarines were believed to be from the South Sea Fleet based
at Sanya on Hainan Island, off China’s southern coast. According to the MOD
document these extended patrols may overlap with the Indian Navy’s area of
operation.
The number of confirmed contacts mentioned in the report
represented a marked increase from
four year ago, when U.S. intelligence reportedly revealed that China’s fleet of
more than 50 submarines had carried out 12 “extended patrols” outside its
territorial waters in 2008, up from six the previous year. Reports then did not
indicate where the extended patrols were said to have taken place, though it
can be assumed that some occurred near or within the IOR.
The report also stated that the Chinese Navy appeared to be
building “expeditionary maritime capabilities” in the form of nuclear powered
submarines and area denial weapons such as DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles
to counter and threaten India in the IOR.
In May 2012, China had declared that it could deploy Jin
Class (Type 094) nuclear submarines at Yulin Naval base at Sanya as part of its
long-term strategy in the South China Sea. The SSBNs are likely to be armed
with JL-2 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs).
This report must be read in the backdrop of China having set
up a network of ports/facilities in Bangladesh (Chittagong), Myanmar (Sittwe
and Coco Island), Sri Lanka (Hambantota), Pakistan (Gwadar) and has also
secured docking rights in Seychelles, in what is described as the culmination
of the ‘String-of-Pearls’ strategy.
The document has warned that the Gwadar port would
“facilitate enormous command and control capability for prospective Chinese
presence in the IOR”.
While some strategic experts in India think the strategy is
overrated and will not dilute India's influence in the region.
"Converting a port or token port facilities into a
naval base is a huge leap. I don't think China can do that," said
strategic affairs expert Rear Admiral (retd) Raja Menon. "Also, any
country that allows China to do that will risk India's enmity."
Similarly, defence analyst Commodore (retd) Uday Bhaskar
said, "The suggestion that China is strangulating India with a 'String of
Pearls' is an exaggeration."
With due respect to the views of the experts, one cannot
ignore the fact that China has in the past few years embarked on an ambitious
program to strengthen its navy, and has been conducting long range anti-piracy
missions around the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia. Also, China is
heavily dependent on oil and energy resources from Africa and the Gulf making
the waters of IOR extremely important to China. India's relations with its neighbours is far from satisfactory.
Michael Cole’s article does not make any reference to
India’s depleting submarine force levels. While China is scaling up its
underwater capabilities, the Indian Navy's submarine force levels will be the
lowest in its history by 2015.
The navy will be left with merely six to seven submarines,
including India's first and only nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine INS
Arihant, as it begins phasing out the Russian Kilo class and German HDW Type
209 submarines next year.
The report warned India had "never before been poised
in such a vulnerable situation" and the undersea force levels were
"at a highly precarious state".
The navy currently operates 14 submarines, including a
nuclear-powered attack submarine leased from Russia. However, the "viable
strength" of its submarine arm is much less, factoring in the operational
availability of the boats.
In contrast, China operates close to 45 submarines,
including two ballistic missile submarines. "China may plan to construct
15 additional Yuan-class attack submarines, based on German diesel engine
purchases," the report said. It said the Yuan-class boats could be equipped
with air-independent propulsion systems to recharge their batteries without
having to surface for more than three weeks, a capability currently unavailable
with the Indian Navy.
The size of India's submarine fleet will roughly be the same
as that of the Pakistani Navy in two years. "As this critical (undersea)
capability is eroded, there is an inverse increase in both capability and
strength of the Chinese and Pakistani navies," the report stated.
The report of the Integrated Defence Staff highlighting the
threats posed by PLAN has come a bit too late. The reason is that the Chinese
Navy has been undergoing a gradual transformation from being a pre-dominantly
brown water navy to a blue water navy owing largely to a change in strategic
priorities and to back up its belligerent claim over the South China Sea and
prepare for a possible conflict with the US-Japan-South Korea alliance.
Indian Navy has been aware of China’s modernization plans as
well as its strategic objectives. For instance, way back in 2008, Indian Navy was
aware of the deployment of China’s Jin Class (Type 094) nuclear submarines at
Sanya, a base in close proximity of India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
A report in The Daily Telegraph in May 2008 said that
satellite imagery indicated that a substantial harbour had been built that
could house nuclear submarines and a host of aircraft carriers.
One photograph showed China's latest nuclear submarine at
the base just a few hundred miles from its neighbours; another shows warships
moored at long jetties and a network of tunnels at the Sanya base on the
southern tip of Hainan island. One of the issues of concern according to the
news report was the immense tunnel entrances — 11 of which had been spotted —
estimated to be 60 ft high, carved into the hill-side around the base. These
tunnels could lead to caverns capable of concealing up to 20 nuclear submarines
from spy satellites. This was seen as a major development to enable China
project its sea power into the Pacific Ocean and IOR.
The location of the base off Hainan would also give the
submarines access to very deep water — exceeding 15,000 feet — within a few
miles, making them even harder to detect. Two 1,000-yard piers and three
smaller ones could accommodate two carrier strike groups or amphibious assault
ships.
According to the Indian Express report of May 2008, the
deployment of the Jin class submarine at Hainan may motivate India to speed up
its indigenous nuclear submarine project that had been in the making for the
past decade. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) believe that while the
deployment of Jin-class submarines may help in sustaining India’s own SSBN
program, for China to sail an SSBN into the India Ocean and operate it there in a
meaningful way, however, will be very difficult and dangerous in a crisis and
hence they are more likely to stay close to Chinese waters.
The moot question now is, why are alarm bells being rung in
Delhi and not when in fact China had embarked on naval modernization several
years back? Should not have India countered China’s string of pearls policy?
These are uncomfortable questions for which answers are not readily available. India, in fact, failed to thwart Chinese
encirclement as well as lagged behind in upgrading its naval assets. While
India’s indigenous projects may take time to fructify, it must speed up its
procurement of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (Gorshkov) and other Principal
Surface Combatants (PSCs) as well as upgrade its underwater capabilities to
counter PLAN in the IOR.
2 comments:
Hi Kumar
Looks like the US based report was highly revealing.
Though the US may have used the term "expeditionary" rather loosely or tendentiously. I always considered expeditionary to describe ships capable of delivering amphibious forces to conquer territory. Compared to the US's large marine helicopter carrier groups China's capability seems much smaller and mainly orientated to the South China Sea and Taiwan.
Interesting what tactics INS Chakra is using to shadow these Chinese subs in Indian Ocean waters. Also wonder when Arihant will be capable of playing a role in nuclear deterrence against China.
I agree that there seems no substitute to India building its own SSNs to counter Chinese nuclear subs. India's (and anybody's) conventional "SSKs" are simply too slow and lack the endurance to chase nuclear subs.
India's reliance on buying/"leasing" Russian SSNs (ie. Chakra) appears to be too slow and problematic a process.
Pete
Hi Pete
Thanks for the comments. While the exact nature of Chinese capabilities especially that of its naval forces is still unknown, what I have tried to highlight is the fact its modernisation and the acquisition of SSBNs and anti-ship ballistic missiles are a matter of grave concern for the Asia-Pacific region. The modernisation coupled with its claims to sovereignty over the South China Sea and its resources will eventually constitute a threat to international peace and security. Australia, India, Japan and Vietnam must jointly be able to counter this threat.
India's slow pace of procurement of PSCs have been a matter of concern for a long time. So also is the case with indigenous projects.
Kumar
Post a Comment