China’s Navy — officially the Peoples Liberation Army’s Navy — held an impressive naval review in the historic port city of Qingdao on 23 April, the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy. By any criteria, the event was a great success. Beyond a Chinese contingent of 2 nuclear and 2 diesel-electric submarines, 5 missile destroyers, and 6 frigates, there were 21 ships representing 14 other nations at the review. The U.S. Navy’s contribution to the anniversary celebration was the Aegis missile destroyer Fitzgerald (DDG 62).
By the criteria of many American newspapers and, of course, bloggers, the event revealed the increasing “threat” to Western interests from China’s Navy. Indeed, a Time magazine blog showed an Associated Press (AP) photo of a Chinese warship with the caption, “A Chinese navy soldier guards on a battleship at Quingdao port…” The photo, however, shows what is probably a frigate. China does not have any battleships; nor does any other nation.
Other articles — some citing official Chinese statements indicating that aircraft carriers will be constructed “in the future” — tell how the Chinese Navy is about to overtake the U.S. Navy, although by which measures is usually ignored. Indeed, one AP article declares that Chinese nuclear-propelled submarines “are considered just a notch below cutting-edge U.S. and Russian craft.”
Reality is quite different. First, simplistic numerical comparisons are too often misleading. But quantity does provide a quality. For example:
- Nuclear aircraft carriers (CVN)
U.S. = 11 China = 0 - VSTOL/helicopter carriers (LHA/LHD)
U.S. = 11 China = 0 - Guided missile cruisers (CG)
U.S. = 22 China = 0 - Destroyers (DDG/DD)
U.S. = 60 China = 27 - Frigates (FF/FFG)
U.S. = 30 China = 48 - Ballistic missile submarines (nuclear)(SSBN)
U.S. = 14 China = 3 - Attack/cruiser missile submarines (nuclear)
(SSN/SSGN)
U.S. = 57 China = 6 - Attack submarine (non-nuclear) (SS/SSK)
U.S. = 0 China = 55
Second, numbers alone to not convey an adequate comparison. For example, each U.S. CVN-type carrier can operate 60 or more high-performance aircraft. All U.S. cruisers and destroyers have the Aegis advanced radar/fire control system; only a few Chinese ships have the equivalent. Similarly, all U.S. cruisers and destroyers have vertical-launch systems for firing long-range Tomahawk strike (land-attack) missiles as well as surface-to-air missiles. The Chinese have no ship-launched strike weapons and their surface-to-air missiles are inferior.
Further, there is no public evidence that the Chinese SSBNs have an operational missile, and none is known to have undertaken a long-range patrol. No long-range patrols have been reported of nuclear torpedo-attack submarines (SSN), and relatively few are made by diesel-electric undersea craft.
The one category in which the Chinese Navy does pose a potential threat to the U.S. Navy — in this writer’s opinion — is in non-nuclear submarines. The Chinese Navy has modern, Russian-built Kilo (Project 877EKM) submarines as well indigenous-built diesel-electric submarines. An Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarine program is underway.
The U.S. Navy’s ability to detect these craft, especially in littoral areas is limited. This was demonstrated for two years when the U.S. Navy operated against a Swedish AIP submarine, the Gotland, “loaned” for anti-submarine exercises. According to the Swedish officers, the U.S. carrier battle groups operating against the Gotland off the southern California coast invariably failed to locate the craft.
Less is publicly known about the results/lessons of several South American diesel-electric submarines that periodically exercise with the U.S. Navy.
The Chinese Navy, supported by a large, land-based air arm and land-based anti-ship missiles, could most likely deny U.S. surface and air operations off of the lengthy Chinese coast, and in the Taiwan Strait. At this time U.S. (nuclear) submarine operations in those areas appear to be feasible. Those submarines, armed with torpedoes, mobile mines, and Tomahawk missiles provide a considerable war-fighting capability.
But the most likely scenarios for a U.S.-Chinese conflict appear to be in Third World, resource-rich areas, such as Africa and South America. And today, and for the foreseeable future, the Chinese Navy cannot project meaningful political or military power to those distances. To develop such a capability would take at least a decade, and most likely longer.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Greetings Norm: Of course I agree with what you say here. The timeframe of my own concerns about China’s intentions and relative capabilities is more like 2030+, which on the timeframe of world geopolitical history isn’t all that far off.
Each Carrier, tie’s up a lot of other ships, just to defend it.
Remember Pearl Harbor. The Battleships & their “Battle Groups.”
. . . meanwhile 55 subs can attack 55 places, alone or
. . . in wolf packs, running circles around 11 Carrier Battle Groups,
. . . hitting strategic logistics.
Quick question for you Mr. Polmar: To what degree would the US Navy’s ability to conduct blue water operations or tightly integrated operations in the East and South China Seas be impacted if our satelite network is seriously disrupted?
Perhaps I should have asked this question first: I (and many other authors I’ve read)assume that a shift towards “low tech” battle conditions works to China’s advantage. Is this a valid assumption?
Thank you!
Good breakdown, Norman. We also have to factor in strategic advantages on the U.S. side: a massive, robust satellite communications network, infinitely superior SIGINT & IMGINT capabilities, almost total forward deployment, and massive air superiority (Both naval expeditionary and formal air force)
Re your ships numbers; they also do not reflect the USNs commitment elsewhere (plus those undergoing maintenance, training etc.), plus Chinas very short logistics lines when operating in the South China Sea or Taiwan Straits – two of the most likely areas if (rpt IF) the PLAN and USN would go head to head.
China’s “downing” of the EP-3, the harrasment(s) of the T-AGOS and other such incidents do reflect a more boldened PLAN, and Chinas military in general.
Three points:-
1) Blithely declaring that the most likely place for a clash is the third world is frankly hard to understand. Why should China require military force to conduct military trade unless they are to be blockaded? Taiwan on the other hand, represents a perceived threat as an example of a Chinese national democracy.
2) The force levels are hardly representative. The PLAN does not have the worldwide responsibilities of the US Navy, and hence can deploy nearly all is units to a future Pacific conflict. I doubt the USN could manage more than 40-50% in extremis
3) The mission defines the force levels, not the other way around. Given a logical mission of the PLAN would be to escort Taiwan invasion forces and prevent USN interference for say, three weeks, they are unlikely to require carriers, or a even comparable forces. The current USN practice of reducing forward deployed forces to minimise cost makes this even more attractive to the PLAN
China is not the threat they are made out to be….the DoD (inparticular the Navy and Air Force) like to make them out to be the boogeyman mainly to justify things like the F-22 and other pet programs. China has a long way to go to seriously challenge us….nevertheless we should always remain vigilant and thinking ahead.
Have to give the Chinese one thing they are better at than us…they look at things long term.
Most of our strength is formed around our carrier groups. The group is protected main;y by the carrier’s air combat patrol. China has or is developing Mach 2 plus antiship missiles, they have 200 kt torpedoes, and are developing independently targeting ballistic warheads just to take out our carriers. One hit taking out a flight deck temporarily leaves the rest of the task group as targets on their own. Any air defense system can be saturated.
And China would get into a serious conflict with its 401k because……..? Over resources? China needs foreign oil a heck of alot more than we do, it is their Achilles heel. Send out our SSNs and interdict even 5% of the tankers sailing to China and they would go into hyper collapse. We don’t need to get into a stand up fight with them. I worry not.
China’s conventional capability I think is overstated and often borders on fear mongering. Their asymmetric capability on the other hand is something to take serious note of. More worrying is China’s arms trade to our enemies, and the fact that without their money our government could come to a screeching halt.
Exactly, the best thing we could do defend ourselves from China would be stop deficit spending and buy back our debt.
Plus these scenarios are so devoid of all the aspects of the real world. Why would we need to operate on their ‘ground’? To defend Taiwan? What for? The Taiwanese can’t make up their minds how to deal with China, I fail to see why we need to maintain a capacity to defend them when I’m not convinced they will.
To say nothing of the fact the economic pendulum swings both ways. The Chinese would be savaged on the world stage by economic sanctions and such if they made a move on Taiwan.
Nope, I’m sorry, but all these doomsday tabletop scenarios involving the Chinese are fear mongering by the people trying to sell and buy weapon systems for s fight we aren’t goign to be in. What we do need for military procurement frankly isn’t as exspensive so these Xbox games gets dreamed up and then sold to the dolts on Capital Hill, along with money for their reelection campaigns.
STemplar wrote: Exactly, the best thing we could do defend ourselves from China would be stop deficit spending and buy back our debt.
______________________________________________
That would entail either raising taxes or cutting spending…Americans want neither-so we borrow.
the most and biggest misunderstanding:
China doesnt need to fight USA directly. just push it until Guam and rule the West Pacific and Indian Ocean.. Now i am going to enjoy that “harasement” video.
I hate to say this, but I wonder how similar our fears of China are compared to 1930s Japanese Empire?
A growing force in the East? Pushing their empire to gather more resources? Not democratic, and lots of industry.
Most likely an unfair comparison.
It is interesting to see so many comments from people who do not work directly on the China issue. Polmar is wrong and he is only reporting on what he sees and making an assessment. China is not a 3rd world military nor are they an inflated one like Iraq before GWI. They are more than capable of affecting their region of the world and this capability is growing.
“Good breakdown, Norman. We also have to factor in strategic advantages on the U.S. side: a massive, robust satellite communications network, infinitely superior SIGINT & IMGINT capabilities, almost total forward deployment, and massive air superiority (Both naval expeditionary and formal air force)”
All of the above quoted capability is and will be at risk. To think we can operate with impunity is very short sighted.
Once you start thinking of them as a near peer/ peer competitor based on overall capability then you’ll understand that they must be considered seriously.
Ask yourself why they would spend so much on military expansion directed at U.S. capability?
The “threat” posed by the Chinese Navy is that it could do great harm to a U.S. fleet or to merchant shipping in its local region. Moreover, as one of the most capable navies that the U.S. Navy could potentially be adverse to, its capabilities drive the needs of the U.S. Navy, driving the cost and scale of the U.S. force.
The U.S. has, by far, the largest surface navy in the world. But, these ships are vulnerable to submarine and sophisticated missile attacks. It isn’t obvious that this is a good military choice.
Hydroelectric and nuclear plants do not make diesel or gasoline. Oil is the only way to run a real economy, they have to have it, and they get the overwhelming majority of it from the Persian Gulf. Possible reserves in Siberia do nothing in the short to mid term, it takes years to sink productive wells and even longer to develop the infrastructure to move it to market.
Did I say anything about sinking the tankers? I said interdict. They run from skiffs with 3rd world thugs with AKs. A flew by from a B1 and a radio order to turn back to port will suffice I’m sure.
What happens to our coast? Same thing as their’s, they get well within range of shore based aircraft and get annihilated. To say nothing of the fact they have no expeditionary capacity to threaten the continental US.
All of which defies any sort of logic at all. Why would the Chinese shoot at a country that they have trillions of dollars invested in and if they did would cause the evisceration of their own economy? It’s a pretty basic question.
Good Evening Folks,
I think I will start off with a little clarification here, I’m not accusing any one of plagiarism but it looks like much of the story line come form a WSJ article in the April 18-19 Weekend edition titled: CHINA FRIEND OR FOE? by Andrew Browne and Gordon Fairclough. The WSJ story was a good piece and deserves credit.
Now off to where Norman gets it wrong. The Chinese are far from any kind of Naval parity with the United States, the idea that this is a decade away is absurd. I won’t address all the classifications mentioned nut will break them down to three.
Carriers: China is behind both of its regional rivals India and Japan in this ares. India has had carriers mostly old British and has learned how operate these prickly vessels, India is in the process of designing and construction its own carriers, maybe a decade maybe longer, Japan has just or in the near future will launch a VTOL/helicopter carrier shortly. China is nowhere near building a conventional carrier let alone a nuclear carrier, which, just ask France, is not all that easy.
Fixed Wing Carrier Aircraft: India has become the licensed manufacturer of the Russian aero space industry and has the infrastructure and manufacturing technology to build carrier aircraft. Japan can but F-18 and F-35′s from the U.S. China still hasn’t been able to after over 20 years make the J-12/13 combat operational.
Blue Water surface ships: Norman give the USN credit for having 122 the WSJ says 107, I think the WSJ’s number is closer. Again India has the license from Russia to build it’s ship design and with in a decade I’m sure India will be producing 5-8K ton surface combat ship based on modified and vastly improved russian design. Japan is already building it’s own version of the Burkes. China although they have according to Normans article 75 surface combat ship, they are suited only for costal patrolling and shaking up Taiwan every few years by firing a missile or two.
Submarines: China has a fleet of 61 attack subs of which 55 are diesel powered Russian K models and 6 nuclear. India is n the process of buying two new Russian nuclear boats for $2 billion and has made no secret out of the fact that these will be the training vessels for an India built nuclear fleet to include SSBN’s. The Russian are objecting but they need the cash. Japan already build a very good diesel sub and will be the first Asian country to develop AIP or Hydrogen (German U-212) powered subs. Meanwhile Chinas nuclear subs are cosidered to non seaworthy and are pie queens. Their boomers are in the same shape with their two newest the Type 094 Jen class station on Hainan Island in sea caves. Makes no difference anyway they have no missiles. The old JL-1 was a liquid fuel desaster, see destruction of one of the Xia class SSBN’s in 1985. It’s replace the JL-2 has been in the making for two decades and is still no where ready for testing. The Chinese are looking to but from the Russians some SLCM’s for the Jen’s.
Finally pictures are worth a 1000 words: With the WSJ article their is two pictures worth noticing. First is one the title page and it show what appears to be Chinese patrol boat and twin barrel AA gun, most likely belt fed 23mm. The punch line here is that such a weapon has not been on a USN ship since WWII. Any AA gun chores is to be done by the 20mm automatic Phalanx system. The second picture shows Chines Special Forces, carrying out a drill on a destroyer, they are armed with Type 090′s rifles but no night vision equipment, no personal communication and most telling no optical sights on any of the rifles.
Clearly China is nowhere near being any threat to the United States nor it region. As for land forces a demonstration was conducted earlier this years and even the Chinese Generals gave it a grade of F. There was insufficient air and ground transport to move the troops and a non functioning supply system.
The U.S. meanwhile is moving ahead. The current budget gets rid of or ends many Naval projects that are eating up funds. The DD 1000, all 3 will be made in Bath not in the Hillbilly Ship Yards of the Gulf of Mexico that has been having huge quality problems since Kartina, bids are going out to start designing the next generation of both attack and missile submarines, the Ford looks to be like the Enterprise and one ship class and a post CVN 68 Class carrier will be the next one ordered and if anyone listened to the 17 April talk by Sec. Gates at Newport RI the Navy is moving into the 21st. Century.
To put a date when China may catch up, oh how about 2110, catch me later on that.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The primary threat from China is not what they can do to the US, but the smaller nations in the region.
Their stick isn’t as big, but they don’t walk as soft. If you were the Phillipines, South Korea, or Japan, would you hold faith that we would always be willing to throw down should the Chinese start getting frisky? Its a risky gamble, much easier to make nice.
If you were one of the nations in the region who isn’t so friendly with us, (Vietnam, malaysia, Myanmar,) then you really have no choice but to shut up and color.
Comparing the PLAN to the US anything is a joke. Compare the PLAN to any of the other powers in the region, and you see the beginnings of a regional power, very influential and quite intimidating.
They have just enough stick to be a thorn in the region.
Interesting that China is seen as “the enemy” by the US in spite fo the close links between the two nations. There seems to have been a lot more concern recently in SE Asia over the remilitarisation of Japan.
Given that we are now seeing the worst recesssion for decades, the possible outcomes are all too apparent.
Posted by: Wembley at April 28, 2009 07:41 AM
Yea cause the world needs to be conserned over a people obsessed with cute. Ever watch any movies or anime from japan? Yea ther all about how evil imperialism is and the evils of war.
Yea theres a realy threat there
The comparison with the Swedish boat(s) is not fair having done asw workup in Southern CA I can tell you that the water there is pretty bad for sonar conditions (around the channel islands especially) and that prosecuting a sub in there would be a bear. Plus which the Swede boats are seriously quiet and have lots (and lots and lots) of practice against us in those waters. We worked against the last of the old navy guppies (more than 20 years out of date) but since they were at sea more than 200 days a year they were a bear to deal with. The Chinese have always relied on the same strategy as the allies did during WWII that is that quantity has a quality of its own, and if there are 55 attack subs and we cannot get any P-3′s in the air and it takes half a dozen asw ships to prosecute a contact guess what some are not going to get covered.
Foo
First we can’t become complacent, we need to maintain our edge. Second while limited in range, diesel electric submarines can still be very dangerous. Also our 30 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates still in service are outdated and undergunned and need a replacement.
Nuclear boat crews don’t want to fight diesel boats. Last time I sat ‘Q-6 Passive Broadband Operator, high-pressure steam was a lot louder than an electric motor.
I think that we can not underestimate the Chinese. We did that at the beginning of World War 11 with Hitler, and Japan. May I mention the army of North Korea, and lease we forget 911. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!! Our enemies will not announce their plans, they will just A C T!!!!!!!! We need to make our anti submarine warfare #1. We know our short falls in anti submarine warfare against disel subs, so we must get it right, or suffer in a sneak attack!
It is interesting to read following comments. Current China is compared with Germany and Japan in WWII. However not only Chinese military force cannot compare with what German and Japan had in WWII, but also Chinese foreign policy is The Five peaceful coexistence Principles. The Five Principles are: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression,
non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. China has not fought any war for at least 2 decades. China has no military staying outside China’s territory. If any one is staying force all over the world, occupying other countries, fighting wars in the current world, we know who it is. When Bush used WMD LIE to start Iraq invasion war, he got majority support from US people.
china has no nuclear propelled submarines. there is all carefully planted fake data pertaining to this.