by Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
Most military observers and weapons developers know the People’s Liberation Army Navy is already larger than the US Navy, as the accelerating pace of China’s shipbuilding and modernization enterprise has been on the Pentagon’s radar for years. A lot of attention is being paid to China’s larger “Navy” and fast-growing fleet, yet a lesser known reality to this equation is that….at the moment … the US Navy operates more carriers and more destroyers than the PLA Navy. .. alot more. The US Navy also operates with a massive advantage when it comes to maritime-launched 5th-generation aircraft.
The US Navy operates 11 carriers, compared with China’s 2, and the US Navy operates 92 destroyers compared to China’s roughly 50-destroyer strong fleet, according to Global Firepower’s 2023 military rankings. China does have three times as many Corvettes than the US Navy, according to Global Firepower, operating 72 Corvettes compared to the US at 22. Also, China is listed as having 43 Frigates, which is of course much more than the US Navy which is now fast-tracking its new Constellation-class Frigates. China is reported to have a 10-submarine advantage as well, being listed at 78 compared to the US at 68. This is one of many reasons why the US Navy and Congress are working to fast-track new build Virginia-class attack submarines.
Looking more fully at the entire Chinese fleet there seem to be several extremely critical variables to keep in mind, particularly when one seeks to compare PLA maritime combat power with US Navy combat power. While much is being made of the fact that, in terms of pure numbers, the Chinese Navy is larger, when it comes to what are arguably the most critical Naval war platforms — carriers and destroyers — the US Navy retains an extremely significant advantage.
Also, while “mass still matters,” to quote the famous Sun Tzu, and the ability to deploy large, yet dispersed and networked maritime formations is doubtless of massive significance when it comes to blue-water or open water ocean warfare, simple numerical advantage may prove much less decisive than fewer ships with superior technologies. Pure fleet numbers would seem to provide much less of an advantage in today’s maritime warfare environment when compared with technological capability, particularly when it comes to sensor and weapons range, precision, unmanned systems, multi-domain networking and surface-air-ground-undersea connectivity. Should a single US Navy destroyer have the technological ability, through multi-domain networking, advanced sensing and long-range precision weaponry, to “see” and “destroy” PLA Navy warships from safe standoff distances …. then large numbers of Chinese ships would be extremely vulnerable and at risk of being destroyed by a single US Navy warship. The reverse is also true, meaning should the PLA operate a higher level of sensor range and fidelty, coupled with advanced weapons, then a numerical advantage itself would prove much less decisive.
Simply put, having more ships does not instantly translate into maritime warfare or technological superiority, as Naval power is best measured according to a wide range of criteria to include sensor range and fidelity, weapons targeting, missile defense technology, weapons sophistication and lethality and, perhaps most of all, the extent of secure, multi-domain networking capability.
Chinese Carriers vs US Carriers
China is fast building its own aircraft carrier fleet and is already well along with its US-Ford look-alike Fujian carrier. Due to the PRCs well known and often discussed civil-military fusion, large population and industrial capacity, China is likely to add carriers on an accelerated timeline. For instance, China is moving quickly to construct another massive shipyard to supplement its existing manufacturing operations.
While having fewer carriers may mean China cannot project global power influence and presence the way the US Navy can with 11 carriers, yet the presence of several operational carriers in the Pacific presents an extremely significant regional threat in terms of an ability to launch sustained air campaigns against Taiwan, Japan, Korea or even Australia. Added to this equation, should the PLA Navy bring several carriers to a maritime warfare location somewhere in the world, their ocean warfare force could be both massive and extremely lethal. Not long after the US Navy conducted dual-carrier war training drills in the Pacific earlier this year, the PLA Navy did the same thing with its two operational carriers in an apparent effort to demonstrate a comparable maritime warfare capability. The margin of difference when it comes to carriers, however, likely pertains to some more “difficult to discern” factors such as the relative sophistication of layered ships defenses, the strength of China’s ability to replicate a Carrier Strike Group and of course the kinds of attack and surveillance aircraft PLA carriers can employ. China is also at a significant deficit in this respect as well, given that the PLA is only reported to operate two prototypes of its J-31 carrier launched 5th-generation stealth fighter. In effect, the Chinese at the moment have no F-35C or F-35B equivalent, placing their carrier-air power projection at an extreme deficit given the sophistication of modern air defenses.
PLA Navy Doubling Destroyer Fleet
Multiple reports say China is on pace to double its fleet of destroyers within just the next five years. At the moment, the US operates more than 90 destroyers and China is reported to operate a fleet of roughly 50, however should the PLA Navy’s plans to quickly double its fleet size in five years materials, the numerical balance of power will be quite different. This introduces an important point, because although China may have more overall ships than the US Navy, it does not appear as though the PLA Navy operates more carriers and destroyers when compared to the US Navy. While this may change quickly in coming years, this seems quite significant and of course the US Navy continues to rapidly add new high-tech, Flight III DDG 51 destroyers.
Also, the concern about China’s fleet is by no means restricted to pure numbers but also grounded in uncertainties related to the relative sophistication and capability of China’s new Type 055 destroyers. Having more destroyers does not necessarily equate to any kind of maritime superiority if they cannot compete with the range, precision, networking and overall capability of US destroyers. The US Navy now has at least 10 DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class Flight III destroyers in development and DDG 51-maker HII has announced the launch of the US Navy’s third Flight III, the Ted Stevens.
US Navy Flight III DDG 51 Destroyers
US Navy Flight III Destroyers represent quite a step forward, as they are built with a paradigm-changing radar known as AN/SPY-6 radar system. SPY-6 is reported to be 30-times more sensitive and precise than previous radar systems. Developers have for years explained that the SPY-6 radar can detect objects one-half the size and twice as far away as existing radar. This increased power density, range and image fidelity is enabled by the use of military grade Gallium Nitride, described as advanced materials which increase power density, sensitivity and throughput of electromagnetic systems.
What about Chinese destroyers? If the PLA Navy has more of them, does that equate to superiority if they do not operate with a compara
ble threat detection range or weapons systems? Most likely not, so despite the pace at which China is adding new destroyers. A Chinese Communist party backed newspaper says the PLA Navy’s new Type 055 destroyers are engineered for multi-mission operations to include land-attack, open water maritime warfare and anti-submarine missions. The new Chinese ships are armed with rocket-propelled torpedoes, operate sub-hunting helicopters and advanced sonar systems.
Dangerous Chinese Type 055 Destroyers
The first Type 055 Chinese destroyer, the Nanching, looks a bit like a hybrid between the US Zumwalt and Arleigh Burke DDG 51 class destroyers. It does have what appear to be some stealthy attributes such as a rounded front hull and smooth exterior with fewer protruding structures, yet there are mounted antennas and what look like masts on the back end as well. The helicopter landing area on the back of the Nanchang does look like a US DDG 51.
Type 055 Anti-Submarine Attack
In recent years, Chinese government backed newspapers have reported that its first Type 055 destroyer, the Nanching, fires rocket-propelled torpedoes and has also demonstrated submarine hunting proficiency. The PLA Navy has conducted helicpoter-dropping sonar submarine detection missions. using a Z-9 search helicopter. This is quite similar to how the US Navy uses its MH-60R helicopter as a submarine-hunting platform.
Chinese Destroyer Ballistic Missile Defense
Yet another critical element of maritime combat power relates to the possibility of ocean-based ballistic missile defense. The Pentagon’s 2021 annual China report projected that indeed China has been developing a BMD-type capability for its Typs 055 destroyers, something which could increase its networking, defensive interceptor ability and overall attack envelope. However, is China’s emerging destroyer-integrated BMD technology comparable to the US Navy’s Aegis Combat System? US Navy upgrades to Aegis have included extensive software modifications enabling a single system to conduct both air and cruise missile defense and ballistic missile defense simultaneously. Aegis has also in recent years been receiving “tech insertion” software upgrades to further enhance its operational functionality, something which includes connecting highly-sensitive long-range radar systems with fire-control and ship-fired interceptor weapons. As part of this maturation, US Navy Aegis BMD has demonstrated an emerging ability to conduct a new sphere of missile defenses by tracking and destroying ICBMs as they approach re-entering the earth’s atmosphere and descend from space to a target. This capability adds yet another area of potential US Navy technological sophistication. It may not be clear how far along China’s destroyer-based BMD is or just how capable it may be, however the PLA Navy’s Type 055 quasi-stealthy destroyer is reported to operate with advanced weaponry, according to Chinese government-backed newspapers. Specifically, do China’s advanced destroyers operate with an Aegis-like ability to link fire-control interceptor missiles and advanced radar? Perhaps of even greater importance, what kinds of interceptors might the PLA Navy Type 055 operate? Chinese press has repeatedly been reporting on testing of a PLA Navy ship-launched hypersonic weapon, yet does the PLA Navy operate interceptor weapons in any way comparable to the US Navy’s upgraded SM-3 Block IIA with longer range, enhanced target discrimination enabled by software upgrades and an ability to track ICBMs?
The US Navy is progressing quickly with its own ship-launched hypersonic weapon called the Conventional Prompt Strike missile slated to arm destroyers by 2025. While the exact capabilities of China’s ship-launched hypersonic weapon may be tough to discern, it appears the US Navy may be closing the apparent gap or deficit in this area. This is critical as it would take away the possibility that China might move quickly in an effort to exploit or leverage its advantage in hypersonic weapons. Multiple reports have cited photographs and detail of China test-firing a YJ-21 hypersonic missile from its Type 055 Destroyer.
However, how many of these does China operate? What is their range, actual speed and guidance or targeting technology? Does China have other interceptors capable of offensive or defensive attack? Is there anything comparable to the US Navy’s SM-6 which, also due to software upgrades, can adjust to targets in flight and redirect without needing a ship-based illuminator. Raytheon weapons developers explain that the SM-6s “dual-mode” seeker enables a new level of targeting precision and the ability to hit moving targets, much like the latest variants of the Navy’s Tactical Tomahawk.
Multi-Domain Networking
What about ship networking? Since as far back as 2015, the US Navy has been operating an advanced ship-defense system on its destroyers called Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFCA). NIFCA integrates ship-based radar and fire control with an “aerial gateway node” such as a Hawkeye or even F-35 to enable multi-domain, beyond the horizon threat tracking and networking. A forward positioned aerial node can detect incoming anti-ship missiles from beyond a warship’s radar horizon, thus informing commanders of incoming attacks much sooner. Not only that, but NIFCA also networks SM-6 interceptors from ship-based fire control able to respond to incoming threat data provided by the aerial gateway. NIFCA has been so successful that Navy weapons developers have also considered using its networking capacity to fire SM-6 missiles in an offensive capacity as well. This NIFCA technology, which is both integrated and deployed, can certainly bring new levels of layered protection to US Navy carrier strike groups. Do China’s destroyers operate with anything similar? That would be an operative and critical question, it seems, because whichever warship is able to see and destroy an enemy’s incoming weapons faster and at further ranges would be much better positioned to prevail in a maritime warfare engagement.
Osborn is President of Warrior Maven -the Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
