 Think tech away, civil engagement lives here. Welcome to the Asian Review. I'm your host, Bill Sharp. Our show today, billed a 350 ship Navy or bus. And our guest today is joining us from Switzerland, where it is 5 a.m. in the morning. So we really want to thank you for getting up so very early. Our guest is Captain James Fanel, U.S. Navy retired. He formerly was the M2 at Pacific Fleet, U.S. Pacific Fleet, that is, of course. And he's a real expert on defense affairs, especially defense affairs in the Pacific. So we want to welcome him back to the Asia Review. It's great to have you with us from Chile, Switzerland. Thanks, Bill. Good to be here. Great. Well, let me ask a provocative question to get the ball rolling here. Why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for a 350 ship Navy? Well, I think we just have to go back and look at the history of the United States and the value proposition that we get from investing in the Navy that ensures that we are able to buy and sell and trade around the world. And we've enjoyed that kind of benefit for over 200 years. And the question today is whether or not the Navy that we have will be able to guarantee that same freedom of access to the global commons of the maritime domain as we've had in the past. So in other words, what you're really saying is sea power is a crucial, maybe the most crucial element of U.S. power, global power? I think it's one of the most, I wouldn't say the most, but it is one of the most critical, yes. And the ability for our ships and basically this global economy that we have, which despite people's political views on the word global economy, the fact is we buy and sell and trade things around the world. And in order for us to be able to continue to do that and for other parts of the world to be able to do that, you need to have assured access. You need to be able to know that your ships can go into any port in the world and be able to get raw materials or send finished goods. And we have known in the past where these things aren't always free. The free access is not always there because rogue nations or state sponsors prevent that. And so having a strong Navy gives us that flexibility to know that we can go and sell and trade. And the world has benefited from that. And so the question today is, will we be able to continue to benefit from that in the face of a larger PRC Navy and even a Russian Navy? So OK, you're emphasizing the fact that a Navy is really important to maintaining open trading routes, OK, and offering economic support. But does it also play a crucial role in the global balance of power? I think it does as well. I think it sends a signal to other nations like the PRC and like Russia and Iran and North Korea that things that are going on, threats, for instance, from the Korean Peninsula, if you recall last November, the president was able to assemble three carrier strike groups and use those as part of his maximum pressure campaign. It's to be determined how well that will go on the peninsula, but certainly it had a supporting impact. And we can say the same thing in the Middle East and other areas. OK, so it's really more than just maintaining trade routes. It's balance of power. It's also, I guess to go once that further, if there ever is an emergency in any given country, it's probably going to be the Navy that extracts U.S. citizens and moves them to safety. Yes, I think there's a multitude of roles that we see. You can talk about showing the flag and showing our support for allies. Right now, we've just seen the Chinese send one of their hospital ships into the Gulf of Mexico and visiting the Latin American countries. Why are they doing that? Well, somebody in Beijing believes that showing Chinese vessels' presence in quote, unquote, American waters is a way for China to achieve its strategic objectives, which is to diminish the power of the United States and expand the power of the PRC. You know, I've done some thinking about that, too. And it seems to me that right at this second, I can't think of that horrific hurricane that struck Puerto Rico and all those island nations and colonies in the Caribbean, and it really left them in ruin. And this created great opportunity for China, in my view, because China, you know, someplace, checked book diplomacy, oh, you're sort of donning out here, we got some money for you, great opportunity for China in the soft underbelly of the United States, and we already know there's Chinese listening posts in Cuba. This is a great opportunity for China. I think it, I think it is. I think right now that they're, they still have some messaging issues they've got to take care of in their own waters. And so when the Philippines or recently this tsunami earthquake that hit Indonesia, you saw China move to help, but you didn't see them move there, maybe. And so they've been kind of slow locked the mark in the last five years in certain areas in terms of dispatching naval forces to provide support in their own region. And so I think it may be a couple of more years before they would try to do something in our own region. But clearly sending this hospital ship now is kind of the way that the Chinese are testing the waters. They're putting the, putting a big toe in the pool, if you will, in terms of the Western Hemisphere. Interesting. Very, very interesting. It also seems to me that, you know, the greater the presence or the threat of the presence of China and the Caribbean, the more I would suppose people in Beijing would think that will take America's attention off of Asia, because America only has so many resources. And if they're worried about their soft underbelly, that's going to be an area of great concern to them. And they'll take some attention, some of their attention off of us. And of course, that's what they want. They want us out of Asia. And I think, I agree completely. And I think you saw, you know, the Vice President make a speech about the, you know, China here on October 4th and mentioned their strategic aims. And then you also just had the Secretary Pompeo down in Latin America speaking about China's involvement down there. So I think it's very clear that China's using the, you know, the GO, Wai Chi analogy to put chips all over the globe to stretch our resources and stretch our capacities. You know, it's also interesting, too. It's obvious that the Caribbean is an area of interest in the United States. It was just a few years ago that the United States Navy reactivated what it was at the 4th Fleet, the Caribbean Fleet. And then, what was it, a few months ago, they reactivated the 2nd Fleet because of Russian patrolling up and down the East Coast. So we definitely have our challenges. I just wonder sometimes if this effort of China in the Caribbean and this increased patrolling of the Russians up and down the East Coast is somehow coordinated between Beijing and Moscow. I think it's, I'm convinced there's coordination between Putin and Xi and their militaries. The fact that the PLA participated in Bostock 2018 here earlier in the year, a couple of months ago, is a very significant event in history, especially for the Russians. This is the premier Russian national security exercise that they've run for decades. But it's exclusively been the Russians and their focus on their national defense and the inclusion of a significant portion of the Chinese PLA troops. Not so much they maybe didn't participate this time, but the fact that Chinese ground forces and Chinese air forces and rocket forces were involved with the Bostock 2018 should not go unnoticed and should be a signal to the West and the rest of the pre-world that China and Russia are working together. They've got a lot of problems. I know that they've got mutual distrust, but they've got a lot more in common right now. And I think what you just described is clearly not happenstance. Interesting, interesting. Well, okay, let's say that the United States achieved this goal of building a 350 ship navy. Would most of those added ships be dedicated to the Western Pacific? I think that's to be determined. You know, right at the end of the previous administration, the Secretary of Defense announced the 6040 split, 60% of the U.S. Navy to the Pacific, 40% to the Atlantic. I think there's been a little bit of a pendulum swing back in terms of I'm not sure about total numbers. I think it's still closer in terms of surface ships still being 60% in submarines. But I think there's an intent there, as you mentioned, the reestablishment of Second Fleet that we clearly have issues in the Atlantic. And therefore, we need resources there. And the focus that you've just probably seen in the last week with one of our carrier strike groups operating above the Arctic Circle on that side in the Atlantic, haven't done that since 30 years is a testament to this concern that we have about the Russian threat. I would just add, I think in the next five to 10 years, you're going to start seeing Chinese surface combatants and submarines operating in the Atlantic as well. Chinese submarines? Yes. That's going to be really interesting. Chinese and Russian submarines are operating off the shores of the US. That's going to be very challenging. Well, okay, China, as we said, is the key challenge here. Russia is a close second. But just how good is a Chinese Navy? How good is the Russian Navy? I think clearly, the Chinese Navy is much more capable than I think the average person has been led to believe. We read the vast majority of assessments about the Chinese Navy over the last just five years. There's still this mindset from the academic community that says that the Chinese Navy isn't that capable. But that's not my assessment. And I retired three and a half years ago, almost four years ago now. And when I left, I was telling people that the Chinese Navy was a threat. And there's a number of reasons for that. One is building quality warships. They may not be as good as ours in some sense, in some senses, but their quality warships, their sustained warships, they've been running operations in the Gulf of Babes for a decade without any serious problems. They're sending ships into the Baltic into the Mediterranean, trans, you know, circumnavigating the African continent, sending them into the Caribbean, as we just discussed. So they're able to send ships around the world and sustain them. They're good quality ships. And the thing that they have is numbers. They have numbers of platforms, so they have a lot of ships. As of 2015, my assessment is that in terms of surface combatants, they had over 330 major surface combatants. I'm not talking about small patrol boats, and they had over 66 submarines. But they were already in 2015, a Navy force larger than the US Navy. That's one thing. But holes aren't the only thing that counts what counts is firepower. And what the Chinese surface force and subsurface force and air forces have is anti ship cruisances. And so they built a naval force that's been designed to kill and sink other navies. And I think that's the real, the real test. And then, you know, you can say, well, haven't been tested in combat. That's true. But the US Navy hasn't been tested in naval combat either since, you know, since World War Two, essentially. And China does a lot of testing and exercise and in their home, own home waters. And they've been doing it in a joint way with all their services, under what they call complex electromagnetic environment. And so they're really trained for war. They have been trained for war for well over a decade. And I've seen things that suggest that the Chinese are able to fire anti ship cruise missiles from ships, submarines and aircraft for multiple vectors and multiple times on target or simultaneous time on target against targets that are maneuvering. And so they're not unsophisticated. They have they have lots of things still to learn. They have experience to yet gain. But they're not a force that we can just throw away and say, we don't have to worry about that for another 20 years. Because people have been saying that for 20 years. That's true. I mean, I think America has historically underestimated Asian people. It doesn't matter if they're Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, whoever, the United States has a very bad history of underestimating Asian people. I mean, you know, there's all kinds of examples. I mean, okay, you could say that the United States fought with one hand tied behind his back in Vietnam, but we lost as sadly, as that is to say, it's the truth in the matter. I know a lot of people don't want to accept that, but it's true. We underestimated Vietnamese. We underestimated the Korean North Koreans for a long time, just, you know, kind of country Hicks, you know, these country Hicks have China and the United States fallen all over themselves. They're extremely cagey. No one should underestimate them. The Japanese, I was just going to say the Japanese in the 80s nearly blew us off the block. Luckily, because of a lack of regulation, their economy somewhat imploded. And it's just more or less coming out of it now. But I cut you off, I think we got about 30 seconds until the break, I'm told. So can we get this in quick? Yeah, I would just say that I think the difference today is we've always kind of denied the resourcefulness of Asian nations concerning land warfare. I think what's what I would like to put a spin on this, it's about naval warfare and it's naval warfare east of the second island chain towards the third island chain, the Hawaiian area, and in the future towards our West Coast. Right, right. Good point. And that's a great place to take a break here. You're watching Asia and Review. I'm your host Bill Sharp. Our show today, built a 350 ship US Navy or BUS. And our guest is Captain Jim Finnell, US Navy retired. He's joining us from Switzerland in the real early hours that there were about 5.15 in the morning at Switzerland. So we really appreciate him getting up so early just to join us. And we'll be back in one minute. Hello, my name is Stephanie Mock and I'm one of three hosts of think tech Hawaii's Hawaii Food and Farmer series. Our other hosts are Matt Johnson and Pomei Weigert. And we talked to those who are in the fields and behind the scenes of our local food system. We talked to farmers, chefs, restaurant tours and more to learn more about what goes into sustainable agriculture here in Hawaii. We are on a Thursdays at 4pm and we hope we'll see you next time. Aloha. My name is Mark Shklav. I am the host of think tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea. Law Across the Sea is on think tech Hawaii every other Monday at 11am. Please join me where my guests talk about law topics and ideas and music and Hawaii Anna all across the sea from Hawaii and back again. Aloha. Welcome back to Asian review. I'm your host Bill Sharp. Our show today building a 350 ship US Navy or bus. And our guest today is Captain Jim Fanell, United States Navy retired. Before he retired nearly four years ago now. He was the end to a US Pacific fleet. He's very active in participating in various conferences around the world writing all sorts of papers and chapters of books. And so we have a real expert. Well, you know, I made this observation on one of my many of my trips to China. The Chinese like to build things fast. They take pride in building things fast. I can I'm particularly thinking of like residential what we might call condominiums and other kind of fancy living places. However, five or six years down the road, these places begin to show premature wear and tear. And the quality of construction begins to surface. So I'm just kind of wondering if this might carry over to naval vessels. I mean, because China is turning out naval vessels left and right, left and right. I mean, the record always seems to go up. The rapidity of which they produce ships seems to increase all the time. And I'm just the skeptical side of me wonders just how well built are these ships? How long are they going to hold up? Now you suggested in an earlier segment that they're doing a pretty darn good job at it. But let's probe this one a little bit deeper. Sure. I've been aboard a number of Chinese warships over the course of my career, and was just up in Kiel in August. And what's happened to be to go on board one of their John Kai two class frigates, the 515 pins out. And I've been on a number of those John Kai twos, which are, you know, newer newer version of the kind of ships that you're talking about that are being pumped out. And again, they may not have the same standards of US Navy warships. But these are ships that we're watching and observing operate, you know, thousands of miles from the mainland of China and the Gulf Bay in the Mediterranean and in the Baltic, where I was, as again, was on board one of their ships. And they're well maintained. They seem to be well built. You can one could argue that they may not be built for survivability in a naval conflict. But let's be honest, the ships that the US Navy's building today are kind of the same caliber. We don't build ships like we did in World War Two anymore, with you know, six or eight inch thick steel in the holes and able to withstand shells bouncing off and things like that. I mean, with most ships today around the world are built a much lighter construction and are much more vulnerable to shipboard attack. But that said, the Chinese ships are operating. So I think the proof is in the fact that they're operating sustaining these operations with these ships. And they are, as you said, pumping them out. You know, one of the Chinese ships is called the Zhangdao class Corvette, the type 056. And the Chinese nickname for that is the dumpling. And because they're just pumping them out like you were flying in a street side vendor with a dumpling soup, they just making more and more of these dumplings. And so the Chinese is able to pump these out. But I and I am cognizant of what you said about the other areas of China where things aren't made just right. And then they end up you know, cutting corners and then the service life is cut in houses and things of that nature. But I see a market difference in the PLA Navy. And I give a lot of that credit to Admiral Wu Zhongli, the former commander of the PLA Navy. And Admiral Wu understood what it meant to build a world class Navy. And I think he was meticulous in his approach to building this Navy, and almost rabid in his demand for excellence. And I've been on one of their submarines, a song class submarine 2009 in Qingdao. And I was on board with our Chief of Naval Operations, our commander of the Southern Fleet. And we all walked away from there saying they get it. They have to build things of a high quality. Wow, interesting. Well, okay, now let's say that the US and decides finally, yes, we're going to have the 350 ship Navy. Well, the argument I've seen raise is, yeah, okay, great, 350 ship Navy, good, let's go for it. But the problem is, do we have the industrial capacity to do that we seem to have only a limited number of shipyards these days. And if that's the case, I wonder if we would ever consider outsourcing the technologically less sensitive parts of a ship like, maybe the hulls could be built in say like a Taiwan shipyard. And then the, you know, the electronics and all be installed in the United States. So I guess my question there has two parts. Do we have the industrial capacity? And if not, would we ever consider outsourcing to answer the first question that the answer is no. And if you've probably just saw in the last couple of weeks, the administration released a year long study about the defense industrial base of the United States and specifically highlighted the deficiencies that the US has in ship in the shipbuilding arena. And so this is a problem that looks kind of shied away from talking about for decades. And this administration, their creditors highlighted this and said this is unacceptable risk in several key areas for single sourcing on several key areas of ship production. And you can read the report to find that out. There's also a class like version, which I haven't obviously seen, but I mean, there's been a lot of analysis, a whole of government assessment that this was made. It wasn't just made by the Department of Defense, this was made with every US agency that had a role and responsibility in looking into these issues. So that's the first thing. So your second question, should we outsource it? Well, we may be able to do some things, but I think the administration's position is, no, we don't want to outsource it. That's the problem. We've outsourced too many areas, and we need to bring these industries back into the United States and have the ability to produce warships on our own in a time of crisis when we can't rely on anybody else for whatever reason. And we can go into what those reasons would be. But the fact is, there's a deep desire by this administration to be able to bring back the capacity to bring and build ships of all kinds, military seal up command ships, warships, submarines. And so I think that's where they want to go. The problem is it takes a while to get there. And as you know, it's kind of a free market capitalist nation. We don't really like the government dictating the market. So there's going to be some balance in there that has to go on. But I think in terms of national security, I think we're on the right path of trying to bring back this capacity into the United States. And I think there'll be an added benefit, obviously, which I think the president very much cares about, which is produce more jobs in the United States. Right. Well, you know, I have two things come to mind here. One is that during the Reagan administration, Reagan wanted to ramp up the size of the military. And at that time, as I recall, as I understand, he authorized the Navy to build a number of frigates. Now, as far as I know, I'm an old army guy here. So you know, I might be getting these things a little bit wrong. But you straight me out if I do. Okay, Reagan to build up the Navy in his day, he authorized the building of frigates. Okay, now a lot of these frigates, as I understand it, are coming of age and they're about they should probably be retired. So what kind of ship would the Navy build to take the place of frigates? Would it build a more modern, newer frigate? Or would it replace the dwindling number of frigates with a new class of ship? I think the Navy is examining all the options that you just listed. But in terms of getting something quick, Tim, I got to interrupt you. We have one minute left. I just was told so. But in that clock always does it to us. Yeah, we could talk for hours. I would say that the each of the quickest answer is we have a number of ships that are, as you said, ready to, you know, go through normal life, ceasing their estimated or planned life. We could extend those years some and we have ships and mock balls that we could bring out and, you know, for some amount of effort, less than building brand new ships, we could we could rapidly increase our fleet size by just doing those two actions. But I think our system inside the Pentagon is designed to find something shiny and new and build something that will cost millions of dollars like the Zumwalt-class cruiser, which, you know, is insane in my opinion. So if we're really serious about numbers, there's ways to get after it right now for a relatively low cost. Okay, great. Well, I want to pop in this question here, but I think we're out of time. So we'll just leave it there and pick it up the next time. But thank you so much for joining us. And again, thank you. Thank you so much for getting up so early in the morning. Every time you're on the show, we get you about a bit early, begin to feel guilty here. So thanks again for joining us today from Switzerland. Thank you for joining us. Please join me again next week when my guest will be former Taiwan Defense Minister Dr. Michael Tsai. Dr. Tsai not only is a defense authority, a defense expert, he also is a very prominent figure in the politically potent Taiwan Presbyterian Church. We'll see you then.