China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, has emerged as a key issue in U.S. defense planning. The question is of particular importance to the U.S. Navy, because many U.S. military programs for countering improved Chinese military forces would fall within the Navy’s budget.

Two DOD strategy and budget documents released in January 2012 state that U.S. military strategy will place a renewed emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, and that as a result, there will be a renewed emphasis on air and naval forces in DOD plans. Administration officials have stated that notwithstanding reductions in planned levels of U.S. defense spending, the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region will be maintained and strengthened.

Decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military capabilities could affect the likelihood or possible outcome of a potential U.S.-Chinese military conflict in the Pacific over Taiwan or some other issue. Some observers consider such a conflict to be very unlikely, in part because of significant U.S.-Chinese economic linkages and the tremendous damage that such a conflict could cause on both sides. In the absence of such a conflict, however, the U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific could nevertheless influence day-to-day choices made by other Pacific countries, including choices on whether to align their policies more closely with China or the United States. In this sense, decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military forces could influence the political evolution of the Pacific, which in turn could affect the ability of the United States to pursue goals relating to various policy issues, both in the Pacific and elsewhere.

China’s naval modernization effort, which began in the 1990s, encompasses a broad array of weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), submarines, and surface ships. China’s naval modernization effort also includes reforms and improvements in maintenance and logistics, naval doctrine, personnel quality, education, training, and exercises. Observers believe that the near-term focus of China’s military modernization effort has been to develop military options for addressing the situation with Taiwan. Consistent with this goal, observers believe that China wants its military to be capable of acting as a so-called anti-access force—a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict involving Taiwan, or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. naval and air forces. Observers believe that China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is increasingly oriented toward pursuing additional goals, such as asserting or defending China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea; enforcing China’s view—a minority view among world nations—that it has the right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200- mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ); protecting China’s sea lines of communications; protecting and evacuating Chinese nationals in foreign countries; displacing U.S. influence in the Pacific; and asserting China’s status as a major world power.

Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following: whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime anti-access forces while also adequately performing other missions of interest to U.S. policymakers around the world; the Navy’s ability to counter Chinese ASBMs and submarines; and whether the Navy, in response to China’s maritime anti-access capabilities, should shift over time to a more distributed fleet architecture.


Date of Report: March 21, 2013
Number of Pages: 115
Order Number: RL33153
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33153.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Special Operations Forces and the Military Working Dog

This book examines the potential for military working dogs to support Special Operations Forces (SOF). Modern technology has not eliminated the operational prospective for the military employment of dogs. Canine olfactory superiority, advanced hearing, and ability to detect movement offer significant military employment potential. Military working dogs can be trained for scouting, patrolling, building and ship searches, countermine, counterdrug and tracking. When used properly, dogs are an inexpensive and efficient force multiplier.

Qualitative research using correlational data comprises the monograph’s methodology. Military working dog capabilities, limitations, and historical employment will be discussed and then compared to Special Operation Forces principal missions and collateral activities.

The conclusion demonstrates that dogs have a wider role to perform in today’s operational environment and that military working dogs can augment and complement SOF operations. Nearly every SOF mission can benefit from the inclusion of dogs— particularly in support of Stability and Support Operations conducted in developing countries that cannot employ or sustain complex and technologically sophisticated equipment. Military working dogs are a proven, low technology, combat and combat support capability and may have a future role in support of Special Operations Forces.

Date of Report: March 13, 2013
Number of Pages: 58
Order Number: G1325
Price: $5.95


To Order:

G1325.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Quiet Americans: A History of Military Working Dogs

The call of modern warfare as the Gulf war demonstrated in 1991, exemplified our use of the most sophisticated, technology advanced equipment that the US could procure to bring swift and decisive victory for a just cause.  To this end, the US had in the past, expended every available resource to meet the ultimate goal.  But although the face of war changed, some fundamental tools and weapons used have not.  As a matter of fact, the US followed certain paths laid out by the ancient peoples of Persia and Assyria with their use of four-legged technology in warfare.

Canines or ‘wardogs’ were used in warfare throughout history supporting combat operations.  Long before the invention of gunpowder, dogs were gathered in columns, many of them clad in mail armor and spiked collars by the military forces of the Roman Empire.  The English were known to have equipped their dogs with long spikes placed over their heads and had them charge forward to attack the enemy’s Calvary.  Britain also employed the use of Mastiffs in 55 BC to fight Caesar’s invading armies.   Napoleon was probably the first one to make use of the dog’s superior senses by chaining them to the walls of Alexandria,   using them to warn of an impending attack.  The borders of Dalmatian, a Croatian seaside province, used Dalmatian type dogs (home of the Dalmatian) to warn of approaching Turks from Croatia.

The United States did not make extensive use of dogs prior to 1942.  Up until that point, Germany was the dominant user of dogs.  The Germans trained them for scout duty with infantry patrols. However, their primary job was to use their superior senses to give warning of an enemy’s approach.  The dogs were also used to ferry messages between front line fighters and headquarters to the rear of the fighting.

Date of Report: March 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: G1324
Price: $5.95

To Order:

G1324.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of Crime

Lisa N. Sacco
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy

In 1984, the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) was established by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA, P.L. 98-473) to provide funding for state victim compensation and assistance programs. Since 1984, VOCA has been amended several times to support additional victim-related activities. These amendments established within the CVF (1) discretionary grants for private organizations, (2) the Federal Victim Notification System, (3) funding for victim assistance staff within the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, (4) funding for the Children’s Justice Act Program, and (5) assistance and compensation for victims of terrorism.

In 1988, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) was formally established within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to administer the CVF. As authorized by VOCA, the OVC awards CVF money through grants to states, local units of government, individuals, and other entities. The OVC also distributes CVF money to specially designated programs, such as the Children’s Justice Act Program and the Federal Victim Notification System.

Deposits to the CVF come from criminal fines, forfeited appearance bonds, penalties and special assessments collected by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, federal courts, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Since 2002, Congress has allowed gifts, bequests, and donations from private entities to be deposited into the CVF.

When the CVF was created in 1984, Congress placed a cap on how much money could be deposited into the CVF each year. Congress eliminated the cap for deposits in 1993. In FY2000, Congress established a cap on the amount that would be available for distribution in a fiscal year to ensure the stability of funds for crime victims programs and activities. Since 2000, Congress has established the yearly CVF cap as a part of DOJ’s annual appropriation. For the last several years, Congress has set the CVF distribution cap at $705 million.

In considering the CVF allocation and future caps, there are several issues on which policymakers may deliberate. Congress may consider whether to adjust the manner in which the CVF is allocated, amend VOCA to accommodate additional victim activities or groups, adjust the cap and allow use of the CVF for grant programs other than those explicitly authorized by VOCA, or make other adjustments to the CVF cap—such as eliminate the cap altogether.


Date of Report: March 21, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R42672
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42672.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers

Valerie Bailey Grasso
Specialist in Defense Acquisition

Military uniforms are procured through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD). DLA is DOD’s largest combat support agency, providing worldwide logistics support for the United States military services, civilian agencies, and foreign countries. With headquarters in Fort Belvoir, VA, DLA operates three supply centers: DLA Aviation, DLA Land and Maritime, and DLA Troop Support. Military uniforms are procured through DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia, PA.

DLA Troop Support is responsible for procuring nearly all of the food, clothing, and medical supplies used by the military, including about 90% of the construction materiel used by troops in the field, and repair parts for aircraft, combat vehicles, and other weapons system platforms. Within DLA Troop Support, the Clothing and Textile (C&T) Directorate supplies more than 8,000 different items ranging from uniforms to footwear and equipment. According to DLA Troop Support’s website, sales surpassed $14.5 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011.

Legislative initiatives which may impact the procurement of military uniforms were enacted in several bills, among them: Section 822 of P.L. 112-81, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2012, Section 821 of P.L. 111-383, the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY2011, and Section 352 of P.L. 111-84, and the NDAA for FY2010.

Section 821 of P.L. 111-383 required the Comptroller General to submit reports to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, not later than March 15, 2011, that assessed the supply chain for the procurement of fire-resistant and fire-retardant fibers and materials for the production of military uniforms. This legislation reflected congressional concern that with the continued threat of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, military personnel were subject to increased risks of fire-related injuries. Vehicle and aircraft fires remained a significant force protection and safety threat, whether they occur during ongoing combat operations or training for future deployment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted its report to Congress in June 2011. GAO found that an Austrian company was the sole source for fire-resistant rayon fiber for the manufacture of fire-resistant uniforms for military personnel; that DOD had taken steps to identify and test alternative fire-resistant, fabric blends to meet current demands; and that there was debate as to whether fire-resistant rayon’s flame-resistant characteristics posed a superior advantage over other alternatives. GAO did not provide a recommendation.

Section 822 of P.L. 112-81 repealed the sunset provision of DOD’s authority to procure fireresistant rayon fiber from foreign sources used for the production of military uniforms. Section 352(b) of P.L. 111-84 required GAO to assess the ground combat uniforms and camouflage utility uniforms currently used by DOD and report to Congress.


Date of Report: March 28, 2013
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: RS20550
Price: $19.95

To Order:

RS20550.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.