Some details from ONI:
- additional Type 055 cruisers are under construction. We've seen signs of this in O/S imagery, but good to see confirmation.
- 7+ Type 052DL DDGs under construction. We've seen 5 building at Dalian, and 1 or 2 at Jiangnan shipyard (looks like it's 2).
Here is some of my previous speculation based on imagery of Jiangnan shipyard. At the time, I had thought that in spotted there were for a Type 055, then received feedback they were probably 052DL parts. Turns out that perhaps the answer was: Yes, both! 😐
Another update: looks like the PLAN is up to 15+ hovercraft now (2020 chart showed 10+)
As discussed in the recent China Military Power Report, the charts shows 22 Type 056 FFLs transferred from the PLA Navy to the China Coast Guard.
In with the new, out with the old: looks like the PLAN has gotten rid of more of its older, obsolescent ships, though I'd note that some of these are of about the same age as the first USN Arleigh Burke class destroyers (if nowhere near the same capability).
On that note, on the left what the USN was building in 1991 vs. on the right what the PLA Navy was building then...
...aaaand on the left what the USN is building now vs. on the right what the PLA Navy is building now 😐
To clarify, the comparisons above weren't to poke at the Burke class, which has been a fantastic success, nor to minimize the advances in the Flight III or say whether a Type 055 is "better".
The point was to highlight the incredible strides the PLAN has made over that timeframe.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the "you can't make this stuff up" category, in this 16 Apr image of COMEC's Longxue shipyard in Guangzhou you can see 5 of China's new Shuiqiao-class "invasion barges", whose only apparent purpose is to invade Taiwan, as well as...
...based on AIS data, what also appears to be a container ship under construction for a TAIWANESE Company, Evergreen Lines.
(and a couple of Zubr-class assault hovercraft, PLA Navy auxiliaries, and more.)
A few interesting tidbits from INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Paparo's recent testimony. First, he puts China's warship production at a ratio of "6-to-1.8" to ours, or about 3.3 to 1.
This exceeds any of my estimates, which usually run a bit over 2-to-1 in hull count, and about 1.5-1 in tonnage.
Makes me wonder if there are PLAN ships I missed, or perhaps he's counting only surface combatants? Not sure.
On the topic of SLCM-N, he gives a full-throated endorsement. Of note, this is not the STRATCOM commander, but the theater commander that might actually need to use something like this (or have it to deter the other side's use of something similar).
Hot off the presses: I'm pleased to announce the release of this @ChinaMaritime Note covering China's new Shuiqiao landing barges, which I co-authored with Michael Dahm. I hope that folks find it a useful source of info on this important new development. digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cmsi-notes/14/
@ChinaMaritime Some highlights: first, our key takeaways.
@ChinaMaritime Next, we found patents for these or similar barges in filings from several years ago. In other words, this project has been in the works for a while now - not a reaction to the 2022 Pelosi visit, or the DPP's election win, etc. (not that I ever thought it was).
In this 9 March image, we can see that three of the LPTs have left (numbers 6, 2, and 1 from the previous thread).
As such, one 4-, one 6-, and one 8-pillar LPT have departed, with one of each still under construction.
After seeing the departure of these vessels, I went back & observed AIS data to see if the vessels were using AIS.
What I saw was indications of tugs getting these ships underway, but no AIS from the ships themselves, unlike other commercial vessels. marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/ce…
@rand recently published this piece by Dr. Timothy Heath, in which he voiced substantial doubts about the PLA's combat readiness. It's received a fair bit of attention since then.
Having read it & examined the evidence he cites, I have some thoughts:
NOTE: if this thread looks familiar, it's because I put it up yesterday with a link to the article at the top. I'm re-upping it today as ab experiment to see if there's a difference in reach from not putting the link at the top (plus I'll fix some typos). rand.org/pubs/perspecti…
Anyway, let's look at his key takeaways:
- the PLA is focused on upholding CCP rule rather than preparing for war
- PLA modernization is mostly to bolster CCP credibility
- over the PLA’s history it's prioritized political loyalty & CCP rule over combat readiness
- As China declines, the PLA’s mission of upholding CCP rule will become more important, combat readiness less so
- large-scale, high-intensity US-PRC war is improbable. If US-PRC tensions escalate, China will face strong incentives to favor indirect methods
- US defense planning elevate a broader array of threats versus remote possibility of war w/ China
@rand recently published this piece by Dr. Timothy Heath, in which he voiced substantial doubts about the PLA's combat readiness. It's received a fair bit of attention since then.
First, let's look at his key takeaways:
- the PLA is focused on upholding CCP rule rather than preparing for war
- PLA modernization gains are designed first/foremost to bolster the credibility of the CCP
- over the PLA’s history, it's prioritized political loyalty and CCP rule over combat readiness
- As China declines, the PLA’s mission of upholding CCP rule will become more important, its combat readiness less so
- large-scale, high-intensity US-PRC war is improbable. If US-PRC tensions escalate, China will face strong incentives to favor indirect methods
- US defense planning should consider a threat framework that elevates a broader array of threats versus the remote possibility of war with China
It will surprise no one who follows me that, while some of his points on the history of the PLA and CCP are valid, I disagree with his larger overall conclusion: that the threat of military aggression from the PLA in the future is remote due to a lack of combat readiness.