Tom Shugart Profile picture
Mar 21 12 tweets 4 min read
3-ish years ago, I put up this thread on the growth of the Chinese PLA Navy, calculating the total tonnage of warships launched during a 5-year period & comparing it to the numbers for the USN & allied/partner navies.
Looks to me like it's about time for an update.
The previous thread covered the warships China launched from 2015-2019. This update will cover 2018-2022. The PLA Navy took a bit of a breather in its destroyer and frigate construction for a couple of years, so the numbers could be interesting. Did they still outbuild the USN?
In terms of hull count, the total launched dropped to 75 from 86 in the previous count.
Note: these numbers are from open source data for ship launches, which China doesn't always publicize like the USN, so don't @ me if you have a niggle with them. It's the best I could find. 🤷‍♂️
By my count, the USN launched 35 warships during the same timeframe. 😐
"Ah", you say, "but Chinese warships are on average much smaller, so the USN probably outbuilt them on a tonnage basis this time!"
Not so much. The PLA Navy again outbuilt the USN by tonnage, about 580K tonnes compared to about 430K for the USN, or about 1/3 more.
Let's consider, too, the USN has worldwide responsibilities, with roughly 60% of forces allocated to the Pacific—unlike (for now) the PLAN. By that measure, new US warships available for the Pacific would be closer to 260,000 tons, or less than 1/2 what the PLAN built.
But what about US allies and partners (e.g., "the Quad") across the Indo-Pacific. Surely our combined maritime power will continue to dwarf the PLAN!

The Quad's shipbuilding tonnage (w/ the US Pacific Fleet's allocation)? A bit under 430K tons
And once again, as seaborne-trade-dependent ally/partner nation policymakers consider the rise of the PLAN and what it could mean to them, they might want to consider this: the combined tonnage launched by the main non-US Indo-Pacific navies? About 230K tons.
As I said last time, given that the PLAN is a unitary force & that coalitions introduce inefficiencies, what seems clear to me is that were the US to be driven from the region, or to reduce its commitments due to lack of regional support, well...
None of this data captures the recent resurgence in PLA destroyer building, with at least 7 likely to launch in 2023...
Or the apparent commencement of construction of a new, larger class of Type 054B frigate. navalnews.com/naval-news/202…
So as I said 3 years ago to close things out, I'll say again that unless we change the trajectory of things...

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tom Shugart

Tom Shugart Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tshugart3

Mar 23
Let’s talk about airbase hardening and dispersal, shall we?
Some of you may have seen a recent story about the USAF pulling some of its F-15 fighters out of Kadena AFB in Okinawa, to be replaced by rotational fighter deployments.
thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a…
There was a fair bit of commentary on this news, informed or otherwise.
My @CNASdc colleagues @StaciePettyjohn @becca_wasser & Andrew Metrick wrote a thoughtful article on the prudency of this decision, and recommended additional measures like…
warontherocks.com/2022/12/the-ka…
…improving the resilience of US regional air bases via passive defenses and a more distributed network of them, and explained the necessity of being able to operate from bases within un-refueled range, not just from far away via a massive tanking effort. ImageImage
Read 21 tweets
Mar 3
Andrew Bacevich, co-founder of @QuincyInst, recently published this article in @ForeignAffairs that, unsurprisingly, argues for significantly reduced US military power, and a paring back of American leadership in the world.
A few thoughts on this piece...
foreignaffairs.com/united-states/…
First, Bacevich is obviously entitled to his opinion; but he does a fair bit of cherry-picking and twisting of facts and sources in making his argument. More on this in a bit.
Also, by lumping in the mistakes of recent "forever wars" (in which he lost a son, though he does not mention this) with the effort to constrain Soviet Communism, he ignores what was saved by US Cold War leadership—to a degree I find astonishing from an Army officer of that era.
Read 31 tweets
Feb 14
A few days ago, I provided some thoughts on @CSIS’s wargaming of a PRC invasion of Taiwan. My assessment covered the game’s setup, assumptions, and key takeaways, and at the end I said that I would follow-up with some more on the game’s recommendations. As promised, here we go…
First, as I’m sure folks can imagine would be dear to my heart, the team recommends MOAR SUBMARINES. 😁
As has been discussed in many times and many places, the USN has a distinct advantage in undersea warfare, and the US should continue to press that advantage.
The team saw that US submarines can reliably inflict attrition on the PRC’s fleets. But their numbers are limited, & they’ll need to return to port to re-arm. Many of those ports will be under threat, which then drives the need to be able to quietly re-arm in a dispersed manner.
Read 26 tweets
Feb 8
Now that Balloongate has died down, a few thoughts on @CSIS’s recent Taiwan wargaming report. There was a fair bit of discussion of this a few weeks ago, but it’s taken me some time to review the report and gather my thoughts, so here they are:
csis.org/analysis/first…
There were a fair number of headlines about this report/study, some of them with fairly sanguine takeaways: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
And indeed the overall finding was that China would be unlikely to succeed in an invasion of Taiwan, if (and this is a key if), 4 conditions hold:
Read 28 tweets
Feb 7
Mr. Kagan, presumably after negative feedback, has now made a correction. IMO the correction makes even less sense, and twists the facts into a pretzel (putting the USSR on the Axis side of the ledger!) in order seemingly to avoid just admitting he was wrong.
Here's the "corrected" paragraph which, while less "wrong" from a numbers perspective, just doesn't make any sense. He refers to the Axis "at their peak in 1941". Well, I'd say that peak was in December, when Hitler's Panzers were at Moscow's door...
...most of the U.S. Pacific Fleet lay sunk at its moorings, and both Japan and Germany elected to go to war against the U.S.
To put the USSR on the Axis side of the ledger at that peak moment, 6 months after the initiation of Barbarossa, is just nonsensical IMO.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 4
Wow, looks like the FAA has put out a Temporary Restricted Area off the NC/SC coast, surface to 60K feet and prohibiting all civil aircraft operations. This is pretty unusual, maybe setting up for a balloon shoot down?
You can see pretty clearly the hole in the airspace.
Though there do appear to be a couple of tankers, a USCG C-130, and a USCG helo in the area. May be some fighters out there too, of course, that aren't broadcasting ADS-B.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(