In this first in a series on the region’s navies, The Diplomat looks at how to measure naval power—including the US and China’s.
It's a sobering thought that even analysts steeped in naval affairs disagree about how to tally up who exactly has the strongest fleet. Writing in the Washington Post last month, Robert Kaplan declared in passing that China had constructed ‘the world's second-largest naval service, after only the United States.’
In contrast, though, other reputable commentators maintain that the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in fact now boasts the world's largest fleet. For example, in August, The Economist published a story titled ‘Naval Gazing’, noting that the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies said China now has more warships than the United States. And sure enough, accompanying the story was a graphic showing that the PLAN has edged ahead of the US Navy in terms of ‘major combatants.’
Surely seasoned defence officials have a reliable formula for comparing navies? Not necessarily. Speaking in front of the Navy Leaguein May, US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates questioned the need to keep investing in a mammoth fleet and rattled off statistics intended to convey the US Navy's overwhelming size and strength.
For example, he noted that the US Navy ‘operates 11 large carriers…In terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship.’ It ‘has 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile submarine—again, more than the rest of the world combined.’ And ‘the displacement of the US battle fleet—a proxy for overall fleet capabilities—exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined.’
According to US Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead, who spoke in Canberra recently, it will take years for the PLAN to master tactics and procedures for handling aircraft-carrier task forces at sea, even after a Chinese carrier does eventually take to the water. If carrier operations represent the gold standard for naval power, naval mastery remains a long way off for Beijing.
Top US defence officials are clearly trying to send foreign and domestic audiences a message: that the United States’ overwhelming material superiority, coupled with China's technological backwardness, will keep the peace in Asian waters. By implication, the United States and its allies can rest easy.
But faulty assumptions can in turn lead to faulty strategy.
Photo Credit: US Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
ozivan
Hi..James Holmes/Yoshihara. It would be interesting to know why Japan has to get herself involved with the US against China. I believe China has no plans for war with Japan over the Senkaku islands. But probably she might in the case of Taiwan but why should Japan get involved? There are no big territorial issues between China/Japan unlike the Kuriles.
Could it be that the US forced a treaty upon Japan to serve US interest after their defeat in WW2 ? Or is it ideology that beckons them ? Or is it something else ?
Wouldn’t China be just as keen as Japan and the US to want to keep the sealanes in East China and South China seas free?
You’re both Associate Professors of Strategy,it would be interesting to hear from you if you would oblige us.
Ivan, Australia
BRUTAS
I WONDER THE WRITER DO NOT MENTION INDIAN NAVY,AS IT HAS TAKEN MASSIVE MODERNISATION & EXPANTION PROGGAME,I THINK IT WLL BE A MAJOR POWER IN INDIAN OCEAN IN FUTURE.
Dan Kemp
I’m agreeing with John regarding the issue of an Iowa-class battleship’s survivability. It would not be a duel of 16″ guns versus missiles. Remember, these ships were upgraded in the 1980’s with surface to surface missiles of their own, plus the Phalanx CIWS. Before they put to sea again (and I in my gun-loving heart maintain hopes for Wisconsin and Iowa), those systems would be refitted.
The example also fails to take into account the incredible armor and damage-control capabilities of a full-size capital ship. This is something that few people remember because it has been so long since such a ship was gainfully employed.
Yes, the Chinese can make it unpleasant for foreign navies to enter what it sees as its territorial waters. This was also true of the Japanese Empire, and look how that worked out.
I disagree that US naval upgrades must come at the expense of our land forces. The ability to sustainably place ground forces on disputed territory is the mark of a superpower. Sailing off a hostile coast or bombing an enemy capital is only part of a balanced-force solution.
John Samford
“US Pacific Fleet dare not venture within range”
I’m not an expert but I do know what air to air refueling means. It means there is no such thing as out of range. B-2’s bombed Iraq after taking off from the American heartland. They can bomb Peking after taking off from the heartland also.
Another observation is that When Admiral Cunningham was criticiZed for losing so many ships during the evacuation of Crete he responded that a new ship can be built in a year or two. The reputation of the Royal navy took centuries to build and was worth a few ships to maintain.
What would have happened if the ‘Jarvis Bay’ was a PLAN ship? The US Navy has ruled the waves for the last 55 years. For 100 years before that they held their own. That is how you build a tradition of winning.
A Navy IS NOT an Army. So long as the Chi-coms call their navy an “Army Navy” it will be a joke. No matter how large it gets or what sort of wonder weapons they carry.
Last, a Burk Class could NOT sink an Iowa class battleship. Period. You sink battleships by blowing holes in the hull and letting water in. Blowing holes in the deck and letting air in doesn’t do it. Read a little navel history. In WW2 many Battleships were sunk by aircraft. In almost every case it was torpedos that did the trick. The Arizona and an old Greek BB plus some Italian BB’s were put on the bottom of a harbour by bombs. All except the Arizona were raised. The only BB sunk at sea while under way was a captured Italian BB that was undermanned by 95% It was hit by a Nazi ’smart bomb’ and burned because there wasn’t enough crew on board to put out the fire. Supposedly a Stuka sank a Soviet BB in harbor, but there seems to have been some controversy over that. The Nazi claim it happened, the Soviets claimed it didn’t. Both governments noted for their propaganda.
Plus any war between the USA and China ( god forbid. two nations have never been more natural allies) will be total. It won’t be a map exercise or a bathtub brawl. Chinese S2S sites will be taken out immediately, if not sooner. SSN’s will be sitting off all major ports hoping a PLAN target steams by. CBG’s will be running Alpha strikes on air fields. The USAF is not going to sit and watch. What the authors have done here is worse then comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing apple stems to orange peels.
Dean
I like the analysis. For this fleet-on-fleet scenerio the criticality is in who launches first. We have the arsenal of Harps, Harms and Tasms to decimate their bigger ships and smaller fast movers if we can take them out before they launch. Still our Aegis defense is nothing to discount should any do. This is a good armchair problem, how to draw their little boats and corvettes and such out to deploy, and then us getting in the first hits out in the open before they can release. This would require a very bold and nimble fleet commander who, while international tensions peer over the brink, can quietly bring his firepower up to bear, and kinda Pearl Harbor-like, get in a good swipe before the stuff hits the fan. If nothing else, the results will be diversion of (China’s) resources to the sea control mission that would be otherwise employed elsewhere.
James Holmes
But if the administration is serious about updating its relationships, it will need also to indicate it can respond flexibly to the changing dynamics of the region. For example, the headquarters of US Forces in Japan, along with the air and naval headquarters, are located on the main island of Honshu (and without nearly the controversy of the forces stationed at Futenma). This raises the question of how US policymakers can ease the strains in relations between the two nations and the region. The answer is simple follow the example of the base on Honshu by maintaining the presence without problems and removing the problematic Futenma base. After which the Japanese will begin to play an active role in mediating on behalf of the US. Thus China first and foremost will no longer be a threat to Japan and the US can continue to provide peace and protection for Japan and the surrounding region as a whole.