A few years ago I had the pleasure of hoisting a pint with Rear Admiral Sumihiko Kawamura, a retired commander of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s anti-submarine air force. Yesterday Japan Times published an interview with Admiral Kawamura in which he opined that Beijing sees the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands as the northern sentinel guarding a submarine “bastion,” or safe haven, in the South China Sea.
This would be a reprise of how the Soviet Navy worked around Far Eastern geography and U.S.-Japanese naval strategy during the Cold War. JMSDF mariners raised anti-submarine warfare to a high art during the protracted East-West standoff. Japanese boats and aircraft kept watch over the narrow seas through which Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines had to pass to reach the broad Pacific. The Kurile straits were favorite JMSDF hunting grounds. Allied ASW assets held Soviet SSBNs at risk whenever they sought to exit the Sea of Okhotsk or other enclosed expanses. Many Soviet skippers chose not to bother. Instead they conducted deterrent patrols within those relatively confined waters, taking advantage of the increasing range and lethality of sea-launched ballistic missiles.
Kawamura argues, in effect, that People’s Liberation Army Navy SSBNs, like their Soviet predecessors, cannot elude detection while passing through the first island chain en route to Pacific patrol grounds. Quieting technologies—silent-running propellers, shock mounting for machinery, hull coatings, and the like—remain too immature for effective concealment. “When navigating,” as he puts it, “Chinese submarines sound like they are pounding a drum or bell.” (An old U.S. Navy joke holds that noisy subs sound like two skeletons, ahem, having carnal knowledge of each other inside a metal garbage can.) The PLA Navy undersea fleet, then, must shelter within the island chain until it corrects these deficiencies and improves its own ASW capacity—bolstering its ability to penetrate or evade allied defenses.
I have no quarrel with the idea that Chinese SSBNs will roam the South China Sea in the coming decades. The submarine base at Sanya, on Hainan Island, is convincing evidence of that. Three points, though. One, the South China Sea may be more than a bastion. It may be an outlet to the Pacific Ocean via the Luzon Strait, which separates the southern tip of Taiwan from the northern Philippines. Stationing SSBNs well to the south allows the PLA Navy to stretch allied ASW defenses. Short of operating from Taiwan or the Philippines—neither a realistic prospect—JMSDF and U.S. Navy ASW forces will find it hard to continuously monitor the strait. That improves Chinese commanders’ chances of slipping into the open sea—as they must until weapons engineers extend the range of PLA Navy SLBMs sufficiently to hold the American mainland at risk from Southeast Asia. Admiral Kawamura may be overselling allied fleets’ capacity to impose blanket coverage along the island chain.
Two, there are good reasons apart from technology for Beijing to keep the fleet closer to home. Western navies are remarkably easygoing about letting captains vanish beneath the waves for weeks on end, taking doomsday weapons with them. Authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union and Communist China fret about political reliability. As Kawamura predicts, the PLA Navy undersea fleet may operate from the South China Sea, or even from the Bohai Sea, at Beijing’s nautical door, once missile technology permits. But political reasons could account for such relatively restrained deployment patterns. Chinese nuclear strategy need not be a rerun of Soviet strategy—despite the two communist powers’ similar offshore geography and kindred autocratic regimes.
And three, it’s unclear to me how occupying the Senkakus would significantly tighten Chinese ASW defenses in southern waters. Admiral Kawamura furnishes few details in Japan Times, so it’s hard to say what he has in mind. It is possible, I suppose, that the islets could supply the eastern terminus for a line of underwater hydrophones, helping PLA Navy ASW forces detect Japanese or American boats transiting north-south along the Asian seaboard. Such an arrangement would hark back to the far more extensive, deep-water SOSUS array NATO strung across the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap to impede Soviet access to the Atlantic. Or perhaps a PLA outpost in the Senkakus could guard against adversaries’ attempts to disrupt such a listening array. It’s worth remaining on the lookout for such developments.
For more on potential PLA Navy SSBN deployment patterns, have a look at an essay Toshi Yoshihara and I wrote a few years back.

bert
In 2006 a Song class sub tracked a carrier battle group near Okinawa for a fair distance but was never detected until it surfaced for air. Now, six years later Mr Kawamura says these subs are easy to detect. Something not right here.
china_bullshit
bert the u.s. let that happen so that china will think they can match the u.s. navy do you think the us aircraft carrier and its escorts didnt notice that piece of scrap chinese metal hahaha they let that happen
MYK
One reason why China will not win in either case is the fact that the US has a mutual defense pact treaty with Japan that includes the Senkaku islands. China also further loses the 'Soft Power' game among countries watching events unfold at the Spratly islands, Scarborough shoal, and the Senkaku islands! Australians and New Zealanders say they fear that should China get into a conflict with the USA, will only force them to declare war against China as well, because of their own mutual defense pact agreements with the USA! Then of course, there's the NATO response to aid the US should conflict occur with China!
I take this as just posturing by the Chinese because they are too weak to really do anything against Japan, and the fact that the PLAN has to look like they are doing something to appease the growing nationalism in China!
What many may consider a strength by the Chinese navy, is in reality to me, a growing sign that China really is weak in comparison! Just another 'all show but no go' for the Chinese navy, as they can't afford a real conflict that would undermine the credibility & legitimacy of the communist party of China!
Bill
Fully agreed with you Greg!
Theo Prinse
Submarines have a depth ceiling and secret technological of satellites submarine detection might have and must be advanced beyond that ceiling .. Submarines are dangerous if they carry a nuclear war head missile platform. But indeed non nuclear subs have a tactical power over time as well. But the latter depends on weak politicians in relation toeconomical trade deals etc.
greg
"Authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union and Communist China fret about political reliability."
I've always found this kind of self-serving arguments to be amusing. The navy personnel selected to run SSBN are well-tested, plus there are significant checks-and-balance built into the system. The westerners' tend to think too highly of their freedom/democracy/human-rights BS. The people operating the Chinese SSBNs know what they're for; they're certainly not for communism or China's political system. In today's China, if you're not very happen with the country's politics or polictical system, you can always find a way out of the country. At least the chance is much much higher than serving on a SSBN and somehow manage to cause big trouble.
In the end, Chinese navy personnel serving on a SSBN is not any less reliable than any US personnel on a US SSBN. Your opinion should not be clouded by your idealogical bias or misled by the "Red October."
Reason
It's not just the reliability of crew as to why China has suffered in creating a submarine deterrent.
Also, when nukes are short, as has been the case in China for long periods – loading up a a boat that is designed to sink with such precious cargo and risking losing it to the depths is a major concern on the old first or second strike capability.
Especially in a war time situation when the seas are patrolled by much deadlier subs who seek to do maiximum harm.
I'm sure the sub commanders are China's finest… but this still doesn't mean they have the ability to hold safe Mao's national treasures.
john Chan
The JMSDF mariners might raise anti-submarines warfare to a high art against the Soviet Navy, but China can defeat JMSDF’s ASW high art by forcing the JMSDF ASW teams into a state they cannot use it.
China can build more aeroplanes and warships to harass JMSDF’s ASW aeroplanes and ships whenever they are out on patrol, China can defeat JMSDF with its numerical advantages that JMSDF can never match; ramming Japanese ASW aeroplanes and ships is one of the techniques to force them operate far away from course to reduce the potency of their ASW high art. China’s deep-sea submersibles can render Japanese and American listening devices confusing and misleading.
Yes, Diaoyu islands are handy to make the above operation more effective.
Alexander
That sounds much like advocating acts of war. Is this an open admission of warlike intentions by the PRC? Your post also displays an absolute misunderstanding of warfare in general. Perhaps this is why you focus your time here, leaving highly amusing commentary.
John Chan
@Alexander,
The Pacific is an international water, free for all to navigate, yet the USA and its Fascist lackey Japan set obstacles like deepsea listening devices, and ASW warships and aeroplanes to deny Chinese submarines’ freedom of navigation in an international water. Instead of denouncing the USA and Japan’s behaviour as aggression, yet you blame the harassed to assert its right to freedom of navigation as warlike intentions, you are praising aggression and denouncing victim, you surly have a funny view of justice and freedom.
mareo2
"…ramming Japanese ASW aeroplanes and ships is one of the techniques to force them operate far away…"
Did you never ever, heard before anything about the "Hainan Island incident"? Do the CCP silenced a new about what can happen when a pilot (of any country) intentionally or unintentionally "ram" another airplane?
"…The EP-3 (BuNo 156511), assigned to Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One (VQ-1, "World Watchers"), had taken off as Mission PR32 from Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. At about 09:15 local time, toward the end of the EP-3's six-hour ELINT mission, two Chinese J-8s from Lingshui airfield, on the Chinese island of Hainan, approached the EP-3 as it flew at 22,000 feet (6,700 m) and 180 knots (210 mph), on a heading of 110°, about 70 miles (110 km) away from the island. One of the J-8s (81192), piloted by Lt. Cdr. Wang Wei, made two close passes to the EP-3. On the third pass, it collided with the larger aircraft. The J-8 broke into two pieces, while the EP-3's radome detached completely and its No. 1 (outer left) propeller was severely damaged. Airspeed and altitude data were lost, the aircraft depressurized, and an antenna became wrapped around the tailplane. The J-8's tail fin struck the EP-3's left aileron forcing it fully upright, and causing the U.S. plane to roll to the left at 3-4 times its normal maximum rate. The impact sent the EP-3 into a 30° dive at a bank angle of 130°, almost inverted. It dropped 8,000 feet (2,400 m) in 30 seconds, and fell another 6,000 feet (1,800 m) before the pilot, Lt. Shane Osborn, got the EP-3's wings level and the nose up. In a September 2003 article in Naval Aviation News, Osborn said that once he regained control of the plane he "called for the crew to prepare to bail out." He then managed to control the aircraft's descent by using emergency power on the working engines, such that an emergency landing on Hainan became a possibility. For the next 26 minutes the crew of the EP-3 carried out an emergency plan which included destroying sensitive items on board the aircraft, such as electronic equipment related to intelligence gathering, documents and data. Part of this plan involved pouring freshly brewed hot coffee into disk drives and motherboards. The EP-3 made an emergency landing at Lingshui airfield, after at least 15 distress signals had gone unanswered, with the emergency code selected on the transponder. It landed at 170 knots (200 mph), with no flaps, no trim, and a damaged left elevator, weighing 108,000 pounds (49,000 kg). Following the collision, the failure of the nose cone had disabled the No. 3 (inner right) engine, and the No. 1 propeller could not be feathered, leading to increased drag on that side. There was no working airspeed indicator or altimeter, and Osborn used full right aileron during the landing. Meanwhile, the surviving Chinese interceptor had landed there 10 minutes earlier. Lt. Cdr. Wang was seen to eject after the collision, but the Pentagon said that the damage to the underside of the EP-3 could mean that the cockpit of the Chinese fighter jet was crushed, making it impossible for the pilot to survive.[15][16] Wang's body was never recovered and he was declared dead.
Cause of collision
Both the cause of the collision and the assignment of blame were disputed. The American government claimed that the Chinese jet bumped the wing of the larger, slower, and less maneuverable EP-3. After returning to U.S. soil, the pilot of the EP-3, Lt. Shane Osborn, was allowed to make a brief statement in which he said that the EP-3 was on autopilot and in straight-and-level flight at the time of the collision. He stated that he was just "guarding the autopilot" in his interview with Frontline.[17] The U.S. released video footage from previous missions which revealed that American reconnaissance crews had previously been intercepted by Lt. Cdr. Wang. During one such incident, he was shown approaching so close that his e-mail address could be read from a sign that he was holding up. Based on the account of Wang Wei's wingman, the Chinese government stated that the American plane "veered at a wide angle towards the Chinese", in the process ramming the J-8. This claim cannot be verified since the Chinese government refuses to release data from the black boxes of either plane, both of which are in its possession…"
In my humble opinion, your idea of chinese aircrafts intentionally "ramming" aircrafts of other countries is likely to get people killed.
John Chan
@mareo2,
Why do the American and the Japanese need to be in the areas they should not be in?
There are some drivers who would run redlight then they will blame other drivers at fault when they got broadsided; it seems you have the same mentality as those reckless drivers.
mareo2
Actually, the CCP totally confuse international law by interpreting EEC like if it territorial waters and end "ramming" and other forms of harassing. Only in a territorial water you have right to denay free passage. The CCP also have tendency to calim waters and land from many countrires, despite the fact that other countries dont' recognize such claims.
John Chan
@mareo2,
If you go to study the EP-3 photo again, the nose of EP-3 disappeared, that kind of damage is only possible on head-on collision, it proves the pilot, Lt. Shane Osborn, of EP-3 purposely rammed the J-8. Just look at the photo of EP-3’s damage you can figure out what has happened; just like in a car accident the one has his car front collapsed is always at fault, because he is the one in control to avoid the collision.
American’s side-side clipping story is just laughable and a clumsy coverup; your attempt to gloss over the reckless behaviour of the moron USA airman by blaming Chinese government not releasing data from the black boxes makes one wonder whether you have ever drive a car before, or you believe American Exceptionalism can even defy laws of physics.
mareo2
If the fault is all the US, why the CCP dont' allow check the records on the black boxes of the aircrafts? It seems to neutrals that the most likely answer is that the evidence dont' back their claims. I think that most people, even some chinese take what the government of the PRC say with a grain of salt. Like for example when in the bullettrain accident they claimed that they buried cars "for facilitate the rescue operations".
Leonard R.
This is excellent analysis. I'm not sure what Kawamura meant by referencing the SCS. But looking at a map, east to west, the Senkakus lie between Okinawa and the Chinese coast. Of course the PLA does not want the Japanese Navy to control that area, it could be a dagger aimed at China's coastline. But even if China controlled that chain, there would still be plenty of daggers left.
Viewing a map south to north, the Senkakus lie between Taiwan and Japan. And importantly, there are petro fields north of the chain claimed by both countries. Control of the Senkakus arguably gives China control of those fields. But is it really necessary? Couldn't joint exploration of those fields could proceed no matter who controls the islands?
The PLAN using the Senkakus as an exit point for Chinese subs traveling to the West Philippines' Sea only makes sense, if Taiwanese waters are viewed as unfriendly. Otherwise, it is a much more direct route to bypass the Senkakus completely. Likewise, using them as detection points for Japanese or US subs, does not make a lot of sense either. The subs can easily avoid detection by going somewhere else. And the PLA's ASW technology lags the state of the art considerably.
If there is any strategy at all behind Beijing's current push, perhaps it is just an incremental drip, drop strategy of small scale territorial acquisition & intimidation. But if that is the case, why is Beijing breaking the chairs and beating the war drums over it?
Personally, I think it is more likely that Luttwak is right and the Admiral Kawamura is wrong. China has no strategy here because it is not thinking strategically. If anything, the Senkakus are a domestic diversion for Beijing. Bread and circuses for an aggrieved citizenry.
Oro Invictus
@Leonard R.
I actually have to agree with you on this one, Leonard; as I've said before, there seems to be no real strategy beyond domestic diversion for the PRC's actions around the Senkakus. All the other aspects of Beijing's "strategy" look remarkably similar to the products of numerous governmental agencies proceeding in their own, often contradictory, directions. I actually believe Mr. Kawamura mentioned this as well in his bit for The Japan Times, so clearly even those biased to look at matters from a strategic military standpoint are not failing to take notice of this.