By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization (Washington DC) China now operates the world’s largest Navy [https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-china-modernizing-its-navy-0#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Congressional%20Research%20Service,comprised%20296%20vessels%20in%202021.] and has for several years exceeded the U.S. Navy in terms of sheer size [https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/01/11/how-big-of-a-fleet-a-look-at-the-us-navys-size-and-readiness-needs/], a fact that raises the much-considered question as to whether the People’s Liberation Army – Navy (PLAN [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/07/is-the-chinese-navy-going-all-in-on-supersonic-cruise-missiles/]) can outmatch or simply might be superior to the U.S. Navy [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/medium-aircraft-carriers-the-big-idea-the-us-navy-hates/]. BY THE NUMBERS In terms of sheer numbers of ships, the PLA-Navy surpassed the U.S. Navy several years ago, but how impactful are pure numbers when it comes to maritime warfare superiority? Can today’s Chinese Navy outperform or even destroy the U.S. Navy? However unlikely this may be, it is certain to be a possibility being closely studied at the Pentagon. Do sheer numbers equate to or parallel technological sophistication? Certainly “mass still matters,” to reference the famous concept expressed by Sun Tzu, yet several critical modern variables such as sensor and weapons range, multi-domain networking, and the effective use of unmanned systems could definitely offset or even counter any numerical advantage. TECHNOLOGY SUPERSEEDS NUMBERS The U.S. Navy, for example, operates 11 aircraft carriers [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a35928241/navy-aircraft-carriers/], is fast adding a new fleet of unmanned surface and undersea vessels [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/09/undersea-drones-are-more-important-than-ever/], and is arming its warships with a wide range of advanced technologies including laser weapons, next-generation electronic warfare (EW), and an unprecedented ability to launch and control a small fleet of unmanned systems. The U.S. Navy has also demonstrated breakthrough technologies with multi-domain networking, AI-enabled autonomous platforms, and course-adjusting weapons such as the Tactical Tomahawk [https://www.rocket.com/defense/tactical-missiles/tactical-tomahawk], which can re-route as needed in-fight to hit moving targets at sea. The specifics of China’s technological sophistication may be tough to fully assess, yet there is little doubt that the PLA-Navy is trying to challenge and ultimately surpass the U.S. Navy in terms of both size and capability. 5-15-23 Navy Read Navy Capt. Metcalf Explains Possible Pacific & European Ford-Carrier "Variants" China’s shipbuilding ambitions [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/chinas-new-type-004-aircraft-carrier-a-copy-from-the-u-s-navy/] and pace of construction may be difficult for the U.S. to match. For instance, multiple reports say China is on pace to double its fleet of destroyers [https://www.businessinsider.com/china-navy-destroyers-photos-fleet-list-2022-9] within just the next five years. The concern, however, is by no means restricted to pure numbers but also grounded in uncertainties related to the relative sophistication and capability of China’s new destroyers. Having more destroyers does not necessarily equate to maritime superiority if they cannot compete with the range, precision, networking, and overall capability of U.S. destroyers. The U.S. Navy does have as many as 10 DDG Flight III destroyers [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/the-u-s-navys-ddgx-destroyer-armed-with-lasers-and-hypersonic-missiles/] under contract and is moving quickly to modernize its sensors, radar systems, computing, and ship-integrated weapons. CHINA RAMPS UP PRODUCTION The sheer pace of Chinese shipbuilding [https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/asia/us-navy-chief-china-pla-advantages-intl-hnk-ml/index.html] continues to be a cause of likely concern for the Pentagon. China’s industrial apparatus, and ability to rapidly build ships, creates a circumstance that can enable the PRC to continue its large-scale Naval expansion at a pace tough for the U.S. to match. For example, China has been quickly making progress with efforts to build a new shipyard in Shanghai, a large facility slated to build Chinese amphibious vessels and destroyers. The new shipyard is expected to be completed by the end of 2023, according to the Chinese government-backed Global Times newspaper. The new shipyard includes a research and development building, a joint hull workshop, a curved section assembly workshop, a module center for outfitting, a painting workshop, an indoor dockyard, an outdoor dockyard, a dock basin, and a dock for outfitting, enabling the production of six specialized ships a year. “The new site is expected to allow China to build a range of warships – including amphibious assault ships, amphibious landing ships and frigates – faster, better and more efficiently,” the paper writes. [https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1243242.shtml] As part of its ambitious ship-building enterprise, the Chinese Navy has now commissioned its 8th quasi-stealthy, high-tech, and heavily armed Type-055 Destroyer [https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/our-most-detailed-look-yet-at-chinas-type-055-super-destroyer]. China’s Type-055 destroyer looks like a hybrid blend between the stealthy Zumwalt-class destroyers [https://warriormaven.com/sea/navy-arms-stealthy-zumwalt-destroyer-with-hypersonic-weapons] and greatly up-gunned U.S. Navy DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/arleigh-burke-class-destroyer-gets-big-upgrade/]. While specifics related to the carrier's performance may be tough to specify, prominent military experts in Congress, such as Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va), told me "We've known China has quantity ... they have quality now." China’s ship has concentrated Vertical Launch Systems, a smoother, straighter hull configuration with a reduction of radar signature-increasing protruding structures such as guns on the side, deck, masts, or antennas. The Chinese Type 055 destroyers, three of which are already operational, 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. Unlike the nearly completely smoothed-over Zumwalt-class deck and hull structure, the Chinese Type-055 does have DDG 51-like protruding antennas on its back half, something that could reduce its stealth properties by virtue of being vertical structures likely to be detected by radar return “pings” and also emit a potentially detectable electromagnetic signature. US Navy vs. Chinese Aircraft Carriers Would China’s new aircraft carrier fleet survive in a war [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/expert-u-s-would-lose-a-war-with-china-thanks-to-thousands-of-missiles/] against the U.S. military [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/f-22-raptor-why-didnt-the-air-force-build-more/]? Chinese aircraft carriers would be highly vulnerable in an engagement with the U.S. Navy for several reasons. Here is a quick survey of all of the ways China’s carriers could be placed in danger by the U.S. Navy [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/uss-george-h-w-bush-the-us-navys-best-aircraft-carrier/]: WEAPONS AND TACTICS There are near-term or immediate U.S. Navy threats Chinese carriers would face as well as mounting threats in coming years [https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-warnings-loom-over-speaker-mccarthys-meeting-with-taiwans-leader-ca4e8062?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo]. For instance, should the U.S. Navy succeed in arming its Zumwalt-class destroyers [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/10/zumwalt-class-can-become-a-dominant-21st-century-destroyer/] with hypersonic missiles [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/zumwalt-the-navy-add-hypersonic-missiles-to-its-stealth-destroyers/] by 2025 and continue rapid progress to mature and operationalize warship-fired laser weapons [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/zumwalt-the-u-s-navys-stealth-warships-will-get-hypersonic-missiles/], its ability to destroy Chinese carriers will expand immeasurably in coming years. AIR POWER In a more immediate sense, three specific things come to mind as current or pressing US Navy weapons and tactics likely capable of destroying Chinese carriers. Perhaps most of all, the U.S. Navy can massively project forward-positioned, 5th-generation maritime air power in a manner likely to overwhelm Chinese carrier defenses. U.S. America-class amphibious assault ships [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/the-f-35b-vertical-takeoff-and-landing-could-revolutionize-amphibious-assaults/] can deploy with as many as 13 to 15 F-35Bs, and Aircraft Carrier Carrier Air Wings can launch F-35C formations. Also, should an engagement happen in the Pacific, land-based US F-22s and F-35As might be within striking distance from Guam, Japan, or other forward locations. Added to this threat equation is the fact that Japan recently made a massive multi-billion F-35 buy and will soon be in a position itself to project large 5th-generation attack formations. But couldn’t Beijing counter such a threat? Chinese air power might not have the numbers and skill sets to help against any attacks on Beijing’s carriers. While China is developing a 5th-generation carrier-launched J-31, it is unclear how far along this is, and it certainly may not soon present a credible maritime-launched Chinese 5th-generation threat or counter to the US and Japan. Also, while China does have hundreds of 4th-generation, upgraded J-10s, the PLA Air Force may not have a sizable or impactful J-20 stealth fighter 5th-generation fleet. The J-20 aircraft is land launched and cannot project power from the sea, and there is no clear indication as to the extent to which it can rival an F-35. CHINA MUST WORRY ABOUT MISSILES Yet another near-term or immediate threat to Chinese carriers would come from new variants of US Navy destroyer and cruiser-launched Tomahawk missiles able to travel as far as 900 miles beneath the curve or aperture of most ship-based radar. The most recent Tomahawk, the Tactical or Maritime Tomahawk, is engineered with a high-tech ability to adapt to moving targets and destroy ships on the move. Guided Tomahawk missiles launched from Vertical Launch Systems in large numbers from US Navy destroyers and cruisers would be well positioned to destroy Chinese carriers. SUBMARINES Finally, the largest and perhaps least recognized threat to Chinese carriers would come from undersea drones [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/09/undersea-drones-are-more-important-than-ever/] and US Navy attack submarines [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/the-us-navys-block-v-virginia-class-submarine-has-a-secret/]. Block III [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/virginia-class-block-iii-the-u-s-navys-underwater-workhorse/] and Block V Virginia-class attack submarines [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/09/the-secret-reason-why-the-navys-block-v-virginia-class-submarine-could-be-the-best-ever/], in particular, are increasingly being thought of for clandestine ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) missions because they can operate closer to high-threat areas due to new quieting technologies, advanced sonar and the ability to launch and recover undersea surveillance drones. Attack submarines would likely be much less detectable than easily observable surface warships and most aircraft, so they could potentially locate and attack Chinese surface ships with torpedoes and a large salvo of undersea-launched Tomahawk missiles. While details or specifics related to enhanced technologies for US Navy attack submarines are likely not available for security reasons, senior service leaders have said that Block III and forward Virginia-class attack submarines are engineered with new quieting applications to lower the boat’s acoustic signature [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/ssnx-the-u-s-navys-plan-to-build-the-ultimate-stealth-submarine/] as well as coating materials and antennas for sensing. Block III Virginia boats also operate with a much larger and more effective Large Aperture Bow sonar system capable of finding and attacking surface ships. Block III Virginia submarines are also more survivable due to the growing inclusion of undersea, missile-tube-launched undersea drones able to find, track and potentially even explode enemy targets at standoff ranges where manned submarines are less vulnerable. This also provides a critical forward operating and less detectable undersea “sensor” node capable of finding enemy surface warships. Virginia submarines are also now getting upgraded heavyweight torpedoes and Very Lightweight Torpedoes able to fire from undersea boats to intercept incoming threats. THE BOTTOMLINE Of course, Beijing has a vote in all of this. US Navy lethality [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/02/the-seawolf-submarine-the-us-navys-plan-to-fight-russia/] against Chinese carriers would pertain heavily to the potentially lesser-known extent of China’s layered ship defenses. Do Carrier Strike Group destroyers defend Chinese carriers with advanced sonar and interceptor weapons to counter US Navy submarines and warship-fired Tomahawk missiles? The true extent of vulnerability with Chinese carriers likely relates to critical questions such as whether China has electronic warfare defenses able to jam electronic guidance systems of incoming weapons. One would also need to consider the effectiveness of interceptor missiles or laser weapons [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/the-u-s-navys-ddgx-destroyer-armed-with-lasers-and-hypersonic-missiles/] to incinerate or disable attacking drones, planes, and surface ships. Future US Navy Carriers vs. Chinese Anti-Ship Missiles Should future carriers be built smaller, faster, and less “targetable” by enemy missiles? Perhaps future carriers will operate with massive new numbers of drone attack systems? Or maybe, despite the growing threat environment, big-deck, power-projecting, and intimidating U.S. Navy aircraft carriers [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-us-navy-keeps-sending-aircraft-carriers-south-china-sea-165142] are not going anywhere? It would not be a stretch to posit that much [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-data-collector-just-made-f-22-raptor-even-better-167825] if not all of these questions have, at least in part, been fueled by the existence of China’s DF-26B and DF-21D “carrier killer missiles [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/pentagon-calls-chinas-test-df-21d-and-df-26-anti-ship-missiles-destabilizing-167901].” These weapons, emerging in recent years, have framed or at least influenced ongoing debates about the future roles, missions, and planned attack envelopes of U.S. aircraft carriers. These often-discussed anti-ship missiles can, according to recent Chinese-government-backed newspaper reports, “adjust trajectory” in-flight while detecting, tracking, and “locking on” enemy targets. Reinforcing these claims, a report in China’s Global Times [https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1199110.shtml] says the missiles operate as part of an integrated network to include satellites, radar, reconnaissance assets and warships. This may or may not be true, yet either way, the threat is significant [https://nationalinterest.org/feature/showtime-china-reveals-two-carrier-killer-missiles-13769]. China’s recent firing [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3098972/chinese-military-launches-two-missiles-south-china-sea-warning] of both the DF-21D and DF-26B again brings this concern to the forefront. The weapons have an impressive range [https://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military%20Power%20Publications/China_Military_Power_FINAL_5MB_20190103.pdf] (over 1,500 kilometers in the case of the DF-21D and 4,000 kilometers in the case of the DF-26B), and if reports [https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36004/china-tests-long-range-anti-ship-ballistic-missiles-as-u-s-spy-plane-watches-it-all] are accurate, are surely something to be concerned about [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3099157/why-china-brought-out-aircraft-carrier-killer-flex-its-military]. This all introduces the question: are these missiles true “carrier killers?” Can they prevent carriers from operating safely within certain ranges? Will their existence truly change U.S. Navy [https://www.foxnews.com/category/tech/topics/us-navy] plans for carriers? The Navy has done and continues to do, numerous assessments and analyses regarding these questions, yet a measure of debate and uncertainty still exists. RobWittman How is China Stealing US Technology Naturally, many of the details pertaining to ship defenses are not available for security reasons, yet it is known that the U.S. Navy is making rapid progress building new high-tech ship defense systems. These include ongoing work to arm surface ships with precision-guided, power-scaled laser weapons able to optically track and then incinerate approaching targets at increasingly longer ranges. Ship-fired interceptor weapons, such as the SM-3, SM-6, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block II, SeaRAM, Rolling AirFrame Missile and of course Close-in-Weapons System have existed for quite some time. However, there have been several impactful changes in recent years, as these interceptors are much different than they were at their inception for several reasons. Virtually all of them have been upgraded in a substantial way; the SM-3 is being looked at for missile defense [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-f-22s-and-f-35s-practice-fighting-russian-and-chinese-air-defenses-167741] beyond the earth’s atmosphere, SM-6 now has dual-mode seeker able to adjust to moving targets in flight and the Block II ESSM variant can operate in sea-skimming mode to intercept lower-altitude targets flying parallel to the surface--all capabilities that can help negate various types of anti-ship weapons. Also, perhaps of even greater significance, these layered defensive weapons [https://nationalinterest.org/print/blog/buzz/how-america-will-be-able-defend-itself-space-russia-and-china-167628] are increasingly networked to one another and integrated with a common Command and Control system which enables fast target-sharing information, fire control synergy and nearly immediate target classification. As part of this, ship-based Command and Control is linked with aerial sensor nodes able to see approaching targets beyond the horizon and give commanders more time with which to determine a response. Electronic warfare (EW) also figures prominently, especially given the current Navy effort to further connect Information Operations with EW weapons systems. This improves target awareness possibilities, networking and the technical sphere of EW attack possibilities. It could be that, with the help of advanced sensor innovations, ship-based EW systems [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-us-army-wants-use-electrical-signals-human-brain-win-combat-167744] could detect the electronic signature of an approaching anti-ship missile and “jam it,” “disable it” or simply throw its guidance systems off course. Kris Osborn [https://warriormaven.com/author/krisosborn] is President of Warrior Maven – 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 Image [https://warriormaven.com/.image/c_fit,h_600,w_600/MTk3NTYwNjQ0OTUyNjYzNzQ2/mtk2nta5nze0mjm2odqznta2.jpg]
