Ok, here we go: some thoughts on the 2024 DoD China Military Power report, or CMPR, which was released yesterday (finally!).
I'll focus on updates I thought were interesting/consequential - areas new or different from last year's report.
(part 1)
In general, I'd say the report has few surprises this year (but one significant one, detailed in the next installment).
The PLA continues on its trajectory of significant improvements in reach and capability, with no signs of slowing down.
For comparisons between the 2024 and 2023 reports, this year's report will be on the left, last year's on the right.
First up: total numbers. The PLA remains the largest active-duty military in the world, though some numbers dropped a bit due to a change in counting methods.
On to the details: first up, the PLA Army. In 2023, it transferred 3 brigades to the PLAN Marine Corps, improving the PLANMC's power projection capability.
The PLA Navy's total warship numbers remain unchanged from last year, but has up to 10 Type 052D destroyers under construction. It's also building both Type 054A and 054B frigates, as well as two types of LHAs (the 075 and 076).
The report highlights the PRC's double standard on military operations in EEZs - how the PRC interferes with operation in its EEZ, but feels free to operate in other nations'.
Same as last year, the report predicts a PLAN battle force of 395 ships in 2025 (a 25-ship jump in 1 year?) and 430 in 2030.
Here's how that hull count compares to the numbers predicted in the FY25 USN shipbuilding plan:
This year's report has more details on the under-construction Type 076 LHA, confirming hybrid electric propulsion and electric catapults for operating large UAVs for strike and ISR missions.
In this year's report, each service gets a paragraph discussing its readiness. The PLAN's discusses improvements in both surface and submarine force training systems and processes.
For the first time, we get some details on the PLA forces stationed at its base in Djibouti: a battalion of about 400 marines.
In the section on PLANMC readiness, the report discussed civil-military integration training, practicing with civilian RO/ROs for both amphibious and non-amphibious operations.
Moving on to the PLAAF, the report discussed the transfer of much of the land-based PLAN aviation force to the PLAAF, allowing the PLAN to focus more on carrier aviation and enabling better air defense coordination.
One change from last year: the report says the PLAAF's tech is rapidly catching up to US standards, where last year's said the PLAAF is catching up to "western air forces". Not sure why the difference, or how much it means - but it was changed.
One detail added to this year's report: the PLAAF's J-16 "4+ gen" fighter inventory: apparently they had 225 in 2023, with more on the way. I'd be interested to know how this compares with other folks' open source estimates.
Similar to the PLAN, the PLAAF appears to be making improvements to its training and exercises, improving its potential real-world combat effectiveness.
In the next installment, we'll start with the PLA Rocket Force.
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.