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.
One key thing the armchair “wHY dIdN'T THe hELicOpteR SEe ThE airLinER On A CLeAr NiGhT” folks miss is a concept folks in the maritime business call CBDR: constant bearing, decreasing range.
What that means is that if you’re on an intercept course with another vessel (or airplane), they will have no apparent relative motion when you look at them. eoceanic.com/sailing/tips/2…
Put simply, if you can see the other party moving right or left across your field of view, then you’re guaranteed not to hit them (if you both maintain your course and speed).
They’ll either pass ahead or behind.
However, if the other vessel/plane stays in the same spot in your field of view, but is just getting bigger, then you have a problem - CBDR.
Many folks probably saw @CovertShores' recent find: that China is building multiple special vessels seemingly intended to transfer vehicles ashore in support of a PRC invasion of Taiwan.
Let's start with overall numbers. @CovertShores indicated in his article that there are, "3 but likely 5 or more...".
I'd put the emphasis on "or more", as I count what looks like 7 in this image of the GSI Longxue Island shipyard taken on 28 November 2024:
Next, let's zoom in, starting with #1 above.
Since I know of no designation for this type of vessel, I'm going to make one up: the T-LPT (i.e., civilian-crewed auxiliary landing platform—transfer). And I'll call this one the Type 1.
I'm pleased to announce the release of a new report I co-authored with @timothyawalton for @HudsonInstitute titled Concrete Sky: Air Base Hardening in the Western Pacific.
Some folks may recall a preliminary assessment I posted in 2023 on this topic, as I came to realize that China appeared to be engaged in a nationwide, robust effort to harden its air bases - and that the US was doing relatively little in this area.
"Rattner [sic] said Xi Jinping’s goal of having his military ready to carry out a “short, sharp invasion” of Taiwan by 2027 “is not possible right now.”"
I was at this event, and that is not what I recall them saying. What I recall is them saying is... news.usni.org/2024/12/19/chi…
...that invasion was "neither imminent nor inevitable", that the PLA faced obstacles in reaching Xi's 2027 goal, and in terms of a short sharp invasion at acceptable cost, "they're not there today".
But judge for yourself, that portion is around 12:00:
IMO my recollection is consistent with this statement, provided at a separate brief to reporters—and released by DoD.
Again: not imminent or inevitable, Xi remains committed to 2027 goals but corruption could slow them down (i.e., not "not possible" to meet 2027 goals). 🤷♂️
Moving on, here's part 3 of my thoughts on the 2024 China Military Power report. We'll start with the PRC's nuclear forces.
Overall, DoD estimates the PRC has 600+ warheads. Last year's report said 500, with 1000 expected by 2030, so this 20% increase isn't really a surprise. 🤷♂️
We also get news the PLARF is doubling the size of the DF-5 liquid-fueled ICBM silo force.
We also get a new discussion of possible reasons for the massive nuclear expansion: in part due to concerns about US BMD (note: not US nuclear modernization).
While US BMD could have something to do with it, I think there's more to it: Xi has said China will have a "world-class" military, and this is probably part of that.
Also, a robust nuclear force is insurance against a US nuclear response to large-scale PRC conventional strikes.