Over at the Naval Institute blog, Craig Hooper harps on one of my big complaints with much of the current China analysis: engaging in simplistic bilateral comparisons of U.S. and Chinese military power. As history teaches us, great power rivalries never occur in isolation, there are always lesser powers that either get sucked in or willingly go along for the ride.
China’s strategic situation is more complicated than many assume. On its western flank sits Japan, the world’s third largest economy and possessor of a thoroughly modern military. To its south sits India (which Hooper excludes), a growing power in its own right and one that is rapidly modernizing its military. China’s rise doesn’t sit well with either country; both fought bloody wars against China in the 20th century.
But back to shipbuilding, Hooper provides a useful service by comparing China’s recent burst of shipbuilding with the U.S. and China’s neighbors.
“Using the official DOD Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of the PRC 2005 and 2009, it looks like China’s Navy is growing. But…when China’s rate of growth is compared with other neighbors, that burst of growth over the past five years looks a lot less daunting.
China: Diesel Attack Subs: (2005 vs. 2009): 51 vs. 54 (+3)
USA: Diesel Attack Subs: (2005 vs. 2009): 0 vs. 0 (+0)Note: Japan commissioned 4 Oyashio-class, 2 Soryu-class SSKs; South Korea commissioned 3 Type 214s from 2005–2010.
China: Nuclear Subs (SSN only, 2005 vs. 2009): 6 vs. 6 (+0)
USA: Nuclear Subs (SSN/SSGN only 2005 vs. 2009): 58 vs. 56/57 (-2/-1)China: Destroyers (2005 vs. 2009): 21 vs. 27 (+7)
USA: Destroyers (2005 vs. 2009/10): 46 vs. 54/57 (+8/+11)Note: Japan brought into service 2 Atago-class destroyers, 2 Takanami-class destroyers, and a Hyuga-class “carrier” destroyer; Taiwan put 4 ex-Kidd-class vessels into service; South Korea put 4 KDX-2-class destroyers into service over the past 5 years.
China: Frigates (2005 vs. 2009): 43 vs. 48 (+5)
USA: Frigates (2005 vs. 2009/10): 30 vs. 30/31 (+0/+1)Note: Regional Frigate-building programs are proceeding apace.
China: Coastal Missile ships: (2005 vs. 2009): 51 vs 70+ (+19 at least)
USA: Nada. Zip.
Interesting. China’s small missile ships are allowing China’s larger vessels to engage in “blue water” activities, so, while these vessels expand China’s “reach”, a dependence on small ships may prove a vulnerability. The region needs to know more about the small ship programs hosted by Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. What, by way of smaller vessels, can these navies offer? How good are the region’s Air Forces in hunting and destroying smaller craft?
In short, does China’s love of small craft contribute to regional stability or not?
Look. China’s Navy is still awfully small. And with China not exactly on friendly terms with it’s neighbors (who, on the part of Japan and South Korea, are building some very modern navies), the PLA(N) has a lot to do to secure China’s maritime borders. It is a little bit of a stretch to think all this new floating hardware is aimed exclusively at the U.S.A.”
– Greg
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
With China you can't just compare straight numbers. The USA's strategy is to control much of the world's blue water and whatever littorals we deploy to. China seems to be more regionally/locally focused with its military power. I'm no expert on China, but it seems like the China vs US strategy is more geared towards keeping us away from Chinese/Taiwanese waters rather than projecting naval power near US shores.
I agree and the comparisons people always engage in involve the US being able to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. China is putting all their eggs in the basket of keeping our carrier groups too far away from Taiwan to help. I think if we stepped away from meeting them on their terms it would make more sense. We need to develop both capabilities to counter that, but we need to focus on a strategy that makes a Chinese invasion of Taiwan a non starter whether they can or not. They need to believe that even if they successfully invade Taiwan, their ability to hold the ground, as well as, survive the ensuing world reaction is too much risk.
If they wont sell Taiwan planes to defend itself why should they expect uis to have there back?
Good MOrning Folks,
The issue here is not Taiwan, but a rough comparison of the Chinese Navy to it’s Asian neighbors and to the US. The article is rather straight forward but neglects on most critical factor especially with the USN and that is personal.
The PLAN sailor (either Enlisted or Officer) has nowhere near the educational background that a US sailor enter the service with, they don’t have the skills training or the time at sea. A single USN Hornet Squadron has more combat flight time the then entire PLAAF/PLAN. US SSN’s/SSGN’s/SSBN’s submarine go out on 90 day patrols, Chinas don’t. USN’s surface fleet ships are deployed for 180 days or longer, the PLAN have few ships that have been to sea on any cruise over 45 days.
As far as service schools for Officers the US is way ahead of China which is only in recent years allowing some of it’s most promising officers to attend US war colleges as well as allowing Us military officers into Chinas war training schools and institutes. This military to military at the lower ranks is a benefit for both countries and shouldn’t be a part on political posturing by either country.
China in 2009 started a rather interesting ROTC type program where they send students off to foreign countries for post secondary educations and when they return they have a military obligation to the PLA. This program is only in its first year and still has some glitches to work out but it show promise.
When US sailors train they do live fire, China is very stingy about using expending live ammunition for training purposes. The USN exercises with foreign Navy’s, the PLAN exist in isolation.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
China's strategic situation is also limited by its ability to control international shipping. In any serious conflict, the US could easily cut off their supply of oil and other commodities.
And in addition to Japan (#7 in Wiki list of military spending) and India (#10), China is nominally opposed by two other significant militaries, South Korea (#11) and Australia (#15). If China made any serious trouble in the region, all would quickly move closer to the US (if that’s possible). In fact, one of GW Bush’s real successes was the improvement of our political and military ties with India for this very reason.
The problem the US faces is an inability to compete economically with China. All for the noise about Tibet or Taiwan or other imaginary wars against China is really people venting frustration at this fundamental problem as they see their living standards decline with no idea of how to fix it.
It hasn’t sunk in that the rest of the world is quietly realigning in the light of the new economic realities. Staunch US allies such as Japan or Australia have long realised that their future lies with China, and it is now their largest economic partner.
China always knew that their rise would be a treat to the US and have put a lot of effort into managing US decline. It has to be said that it’s been very well done and wildly successful.
One of the impacts of this is that the mainstream US military and strategy is largely nostalgic. Sure the toys are new and much more expensive but the thinking is all still 1945.
This falls into the bucket of noise. The US imports no products into China. The Chinese economy, albeit better controlled than ours, is on the verge of a major correction. What you failed to include in your conjecture is that if we stopped importing Chinese crap, poison and other goods we don't need there would be a major attitude change among the "chinese hegemonic replacement wishers".
Whether it is Bush or the Mao Lovers in the WH, if we had the balls to impose a tariff on their crap we would solve the problems we face – but of course this is fantasy from the political elites who have major stakes in US companies operating in China while sowing the seeds of our economic destruction. Vietnam or Malaysia are always ready to replace China in manufacturing so a supply of crap we really don't need is always available.
When I think of the Chinese, I think of MacArthur and his contributions toward dismissing China's abilities until he was slapped up-side the head. This does not mean the US is doomed, just doomed to be stupid. The US has the strength and leverage upon China, but for some reason refuses to apply it!
Pretty much the only regional player that cares about an independent Taiwan is the US.
In the south there's the S. China Sea and the Bay of Bengal; bit of a hornet's nest for China. In the north, its the Koreas and Japan.
Worst scenaario for the PLAN and PLAAF is if everything broke out at once. As long as China contains itself to the Taiwan problem, its USA vs China.
Gosh, when was the massive tsunami that moved Japan to China's western flank? I must have missed that.
^ me to
Your math and chinese destoyers is wrong to.