China Now Has World's Largest Navy

[left-of-center2012]

China is bent on creating a world-class military that can conduct joint operations across the globe and already boasts the world’s largest navy, according to the Pentagon’s latest annual assessment of the Chinese military. A “permanent condition of military inferiority is anathema” to China’s leadership and nowhere is that more obvious in its naval build-up, Chad Sbragia, deputy assistant secretary of defense for China, said during a Tuesday.

A key component has been China’s continuing maritime build-up from its surface forces to ballistic missile submarines. He said its fleet numbers 350 warships compared to the United States’ 293. Sbragia said the Pentagon expects the Chinese fleet will number 360 warships by the end of this decade.

He added that Beijing with its new confidence has become “more assertive” in its territorial disputes with its neighbors — from India to Taiwan to the South China Sea. While “numbers are only one element” in measuring military power, China is also testing its far seas reach in exploring potential bases from Myanmar to Africa and South America.

“The global PLA military logistics network could interfere with U.S. military operations and those of our allies and provide flexibility to support offensive operations against the United States,” he told the reporters.

Sbragia said “the unification of Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong are essential” to Xi’s vision for Beijing’s future. “2020 has served as a critical marker for China” in the development of its amphibious forces, necessary if it were to try to take Taiwan by force.

https://news.usni.org/2020/09/01/pentagon-report-china-now-has-worlds-largest-navy-as-beijing-expands-military-influence

[Sherman A1]

1. Yes, and they also have

a large Dam that appears to be in rather serious trouble.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. I have heard this before. China relies on the seas more heavier than a lot of nations do, and

thus, their economy is geared somewhat to the sea. Just how much of their navy rated for deep seas, is probably the better question here. Where else (maybe Vietnam) can these ships go to port and resupply?

Again, an article trying to invoke hysteria etc. and playing 'counting beans' in trying to compare military forces to other military forces in the world. China literally has no experience in operating a world class navy, except for the one thousands of years ago...

-snip-
The naval history of China dates back thousands of years, with archives existing since the late Spring and Autumn period (722 BC – 481 BC) about the ancient navy of China and the various ship types used in war.[1] China was the leading maritime power in the years 1400–1433, when Chinese shipbuilders began to build massive ocean-going junks.[2] In modern times, the current People's Republic of China and Taiwanese governments continue to maintain standing navies through the People's Liberation Army Navy and the Republic of China Navy, respectively.
-snip-

[Baclava]

18. I'm sure they have a lot of coastal patrol assets, but we have 11 nuclear carriers to their 2

I'm not sure this report wasn't released as new money-grab by the Pentagon! LOL

[machoneman]

21. But of course ti was Baclava! Just watch for Trumpians to say we need a lot more $ for the Navy.....

...and President-elect Biden would sink them all!

[SWBTATTReg]

22. I think you're right! Funding hysteria, etc. And I thought that the Armed Forces didn't want any-

more money, they specifically asked for no more money (IMHO) and yet, they still rec'd.

[jayfish]

26. Neither of Their Carriers Are Nuclear Powered.

As far as your money grab comment goes. Do a Google search for "china aircraft carrier" then click "News".

Hmmm... ...coincidence?

[Baclava]

27. They have plans to build 4 nuclear carriers for a planned 6 battle groups, by 2035

If you can believe their press, they have big plans to modernize their navy, so we should be OK for a couple of decades

[rockfordfile]

24. Russia and China are a problem.

[SWBTATTReg]

25. and...????

[soryang]

3. This is one sided presentation

Of course that's what USNI does, it indoctrinates their audience because of their relationship to the armed forces and armaments industry, even though they contend this is not the case. I've read their material for years.

China is a major power. The western alliance doesn't get to unilaterally write the rules. It is the US that has been unilaterally rejecting international agreements. The PCA/ITLOS has no jurisdiction over Chinese territorial or maritime claims based on sovereignty. Gunboat diplomacy will only lead to war.


South China Sea Dispute series:

Part I: Taiwan's Claim to a South China Sea EEZ, August 11 2020
https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2020/08/taiwans-claim-to-south-china-sea-eez.html

Part II: Forbes: "Strangle China's Economy," August 24, 2020
https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2020/08/forbes-strangle-chinas-economy.html

Part III: US-Japanese plans to "strangle China, August 30, 2020
https://civilizationdiscontents.blogspot.com/2020/08/part-ii-us-japanese-plans-to-strangle.html

[EX500rider]

6. "It is the US that has been unilaterally rejecting international agreements"

China's theft of Filipino maritime territory and resources is a fact. In 2016, the Hague's arbitration tribunal ruled that China had intruded on Filipino territory when it seized islets in the Spratlys, constructed artificial islands on reefs well inside long-recognized Filipino territory and conducted illegal fishing operations. The tribunal relied heavily on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty (UNCLOS), which China claims to recognize and support. Beijing ignored the Hague's verdict and continued its predatory behavior.


https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/201904100553.aspx

[soryang]

7. they had no jurisdiction

the decision is void.

[EX500rider]

9. China signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty.....

...which meant accepting the arbitration process.

On July 12, 2016, The Hague's international arbitral tribunal, relying on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty (UNCLOS), issued a ruling supporting the Philippines' claims that China had violated Filipino territory in the South China Sea by seizing islets and "sea features." China had also plundered resources in the Philippines' maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Despite having signed the sea treaty (which meant accepting the arbitration process), the Chinese government callously ignored the verdict and disdained the court's authority.

UNCLOS codified the geophysical conditions and legal precedents establishing sovereign control of territorial waters and sovereign rights in the EEZ. It is an example of practical, peace-promoting diplomacy.

China's blunt rejection of the decision stunned the Filipino government and alerted other nations on the Pacific Rim. The Beijing regime not only broke a major treaty it had ratified but also openly maligned legal procedures created to promote peaceful resolution of international disputes. Beijing's thuggish rebuke sent the message that Chinese whim backed by China's enormous military and economic power determined sovereignty in the South China Sea.


https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20200714202033.aspx

[soryang]

11. There is no jurisdiction over sovereign claims that preexisted UNCLOS

This article cited below depicts the Chinese position on the so called “arbitration” by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea. Please refer to the article for a more complete description of the PCA's unsound assumption of jurisdiction and decision. The Chinese never acquiesced to PCA jurisdiction and the court's reasoning on jurisdiction is defective. Consequently, the decision is void.

The bottom line is there is no PCA/ITLOS jurisdiction over Chinese sovereignty claims:

…The overall obligation to submit to a compulsory conciliation procedure under 298(1)(a)(i) will however not apply in respect of a maritime boundary dispute which “necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over the continental shelf or insular territory”.21 In other words, obligation contained in article 298(1)(a)(i) to submit a conciliation procedure is subject to three conditions: (i) the dispute should have arisen after the Convention entered into force; (ii) no agreement could be reached between the parties settling the dispute within a reasonable period of time; and (iii) that the dispute did not involve “the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental shelf or insular land territory”.*

*The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju Author
Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2016, Pages 265–307, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019
Published: 20 June 2016 https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

[EX500rider]

12. More:

In 2013, the Philippines asked The Hague's Permanent Court of Arbitration to rule on the territorial disputes between Manila and Beijing. The Court would convene under terms prescribed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 167 nations have signed the treaty, including the Philippines and China. China ratified it in 1996.
The panel addressed "the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China."

The panel concluded China has indeed violated the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea. EEZs extend 200 nautical miles from sovereign territory. All natural resources found in those waters belong to sovereign nation.

The panel concluded there "was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas" within the line and China's attempt to game the system by pouring concrete in the sea was illegitimate. The panel ruled that the "Convention classifies (sea) features on their natural condition" and China's "land reclamation and construction" program didn't change that.

https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20160712232816.aspx

The Philippines contests China's claims to its territory. In 2012, Scarborough Shoal (in the Spratly Islands) was a reef, a "sea feature" well inside long-recognized Filipino territory. The shoal is about 250 kilometers from the large inhabited Filipino island of Palawan. It is 1,200 kilometers from China,

[soryang]

17. Taiwan also rejects the so called "arbitration"

Contrary to the contentions of the PCA which purport to find that Taiping Island is an "uninhabitable rock," Taiping is a habitable island that can and does support human habitation. This is the argument of Taiwan.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) 中華民國外交部 - 全球資訊網英文網
Taiping Island is an island, not a rock, and the ROC possesses full rights associated with an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in accordance with UNCLOS...

https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8157691CA2AA32F8&sms=4F8ED5441E33EA7B&s=174B7FC38E9C9F9B


The PCA decision proceeds from a Philippine admission arguendo on the jurisdictional exclusion for territorial claims to a complete rejection of Chinese EEZ claims in the Spratley’s (and the Paracels by western operational extension).

“73…To this extent there is obvious contradiction or lack of consistency in the position of the Tribunal. On the one hand, it declares that it is not empowered to deal with issues of sovereignty and maritime delimitation in view of the Chinese Declaration pertaining to the disputes under the UNCLOS but, on the other hand, it declares itself competent to examine “the source of maritime entitlements of China in the South China Sea”. In that sense, the position of the Tribunal is manifestly self-contradictory.”*

*Id., https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

[EX500rider]

32. Taiwan also rejects that they are a renegade province of China but I bet u disagree? nt

[EX500rider]

4. lets compare tonnage:

Country: Fleet Tonnage (tons):
United States of America: 3,415,893
Russia: 845,730
China: 708,086

The US Navy tonnage is actually bigger than the next 13 Navies – combined

https://migflug.com/jetflights/russian-navy-bigger-than-uss/

[Kaleva]

10. China's navy is still very much a brown water force.

[jayfish]

13. Their Blue Water Gear Really Hasn't Been Anywhere Either.

Combined with the institutional knowledge amassed throughout hundreds of years of maritime warfare, it would be a bad time for the Chinese Navy.

[SWBTATTReg]

23. Brown Water force, I like this term, was the one that I was looking for earlier. Thanks for the ...

reminder (and relevant fact too). Take care.

[TheBlackAdder]

5. DPRK's prime defensive weapon: Nuclear Underwater Mines-Wipes out entire Aircraft Carrier Task Force

.

They've been perfecting them for decades, and based on the one US test of an underwater explosion, ended abysmally.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/70-years-ago-the-us-military-set-off-a-nuke-underwater-and-it-went-very-badly

.

[jayfish]

8. And if They Ever Used One They Would Cease to Exist.

I don't think people really understand how destructive the US military can be. This is fearmongering to get more military funding or some hairbrain system approved. Also, the Chinese navy is, primarily, a brown water navy. In a conventional confrontation it would also cease to exist.

EDIT: I'm not 100% sure if the use of a tactical nuke would trigger MAD. ...if someone could correct me.

[TheBlackAdder]

14. If one goes off in the middle of the Pacific, was it an accident? Was it a mine? If so, who did it?

.

They could have a few deployed in a lay & wait state, towed by their mini subs or by friendly nation ships.

.

[jayfish]

15. Well, Your Hypothetical Was That China Used It.

My response was based on that assumption.

[TheBlackAdder]

16. My hypothetical is that ANY nation can use it, even ones deemed weak like DPRK.

[jayfish]

19. China Is A Proliferator of Tactical nuclcear Weapons...

and/or nuclear weapon technology? When was this revealed?

[ProfessorGAC]

20. What A Waste Of Money

Antiquated thinking as well.
They have 60% of GDP of the US, with 4x the population. This makes per capita GDP 15% of that in the US.
They can't afford to have global reach for more than a couple days at a time, especially given 40% of their equity markets is owned by people living in other countries.
They'd be better off spending that money on outreach & good will to pull up some smaller countries and expand their export base.
But, no!

[Blue_true]

28. I have always believe that if China turned to internal growth,

it would quickly become the world’s wealthiest country. The United States became powerful during two periods, albeit they were underpinned by genocide (of American Indians and African American Slaves) and slavery. The period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War saw America expand into the Midwest and southwestern South and develop heavy industry that was used almost exclusively internally. The second period was from after the Civil War to the country’s entry into WWI, that period featured more internal industrialization and expansion westward to all parts of the Pacific, and adding Alaska and Hawaii. My argument is that the period after WWII, where we became heavily dependent upon exports has been a very bumpy period for us. Large growth after WWII as we were really the only intact industrialized country makes that period look better than it should look.

If China replicated what we did in growing internally, while maintaining worldwide diplomacy, it would surpass us economically within a generation.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Seems Too Short A Time

But, shear population makes huge growth possible by massively enhancing consumption, and they wouldn't be import heavy. I still don't see anyway they modernize huge swaths of the country in a generation. Perhaps 50-60 years.
This navy thing flies in the face of what both of us are saying.
It's an externally directed grandstand move that isn't their best path to prosperity.

[Blue_true]

30. The Navy thing is akin to a guy in a bar trying to get ladies to look at

his Johnson imprint through his pants, it’s all grand-standing and chest thumping.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. +1 (nt)