Skip to content

How far will China's navy reach?

China's growing naval prowess is not so much an exercise in belligerence but an effort to shake off the shackles that have long confined its strategic reach. Nevertheless, there is reason for concern: Any China-related military conflict is most likely to be triggered and fought at sea.

Published:

Often discussed in the same breath as the country's economic rise,  China's military modernization is nothing new. However, the specific  issue of the country's naval development has gained critical currency  only in the last few years. Last year alone saw a flurry of media  reports and discussion pieces on the subject. A recent editorial in The New York Times highlighted what it saw as China's intention to challenge US naval  supremacy in the Western Pacific, its aggressive pursuit of the disputed  offshore islands in the East and South China Seas and how "Washington  must respond, carefully but firmly."

Should we be really concerned? The short answer is yes - and  not because China seeks to become a belligerent power. There is  currently no evidence to suggest that China seeks to exercise the kind  of global hegemonic ambitions often depicted by hawks and the far-right  in American, Indian and Japanese political circles. Yet, China's naval  power merits concern because the maritime realm is the most probable  dimension in which a Chinese-related military conflict will be triggered  and fought. There are several reasons for this.

Securing economic, geopolitical aims

One reason has to do with China's rapid economic growth. History  tells us that a country's naval power tends to be directly linked with  its economic strength, and China, in recent times, is no exception.  To be sure, China has been slow to shift away from its deeply  entrenched continental mindset. After all, 14 land powers share  territorial frontiers with China, while only six maritime countries  surround the Chinese coast. However, now that China has settled 12 out  of 14 land border disputes with its neighbors, the sea is the final  frontier that Beijing feels compelled to secure.

There is some urgency in this quest. The bulk of global trade is only  possible by sea-borne freight. Beijing feels it must protect the sea  lanes that make both the movement of goods (about 90 percent of its  import and exports) and the importation of resources and energy  possible, without which China's economy would come to a standstill. The  Chinese leadership also feels that it must protect what they perceive to  be its maritime territorial sovereignty. As a matter of "coastal  defense", the Chinese Navy is compelled to secure its 18,000-kilometer  shoreline.

Now, the Chinese Navy is attempting to secure the country's claim to  an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles from the  country's continental shelf. The legitimacy of the zone is disputed by  Japan, and non-combatant US naval vessels have made excursions into  these waters in the past. Chinese officials would also like to claim  about three million out of nearly five million square kilometers of  "coastal real estate" in the East and South China Seas and the Yellow  Sea that contain a wealth of oceanic natural resources. Beijing is  simply striving to establish better naval control of these areas than  its regional neighbors, propelling the Chinese Navy toward the concept  of "offshore defense" - a venture that increases the chances of a naval  skirmish.

Not only economic interests but also geopolitical ones are fueling  China's naval prowess, particularly in the Taiwan Straits - the most  likely naval flashpoint. Beijing's option to unify Taiwan with the  mainland by military force if necessary is no longer fuelled by ideology  but geopolitics. As a 2008 US government report correctly put it, Taiwan is regarded as the focal point from which  China can 'break out' from its centuries-long containment along the  Pacific littoral" and secure its immediate security environment within  the Asia-Pacific region. This 'line of containment' is also known as the  oft-mentioned "first-island chain" running south from the Japanese  archipelago to the Philippines, which naturally denies the mainland from  having unfettered access to the oceanic thoroughfare. The possession of  Taiwan would permanently break China's geographical curse. As a result,  the Taiwan Straits - as well as the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea -  have become pressing geopolitical priorities that drive China's  expansive military planning and procurement.

Naval prowess - only one head of the hydra

Moreover, it must be said that China's growing 'naval power' is not only about an expanding fleet of ships and submarines.  All militaries advancing towards greater sophistication seek to  integrate their sea, air, land and space capabilities in order to  increase overall lethality, efficiency and effectiveness. The Chinese  Navy is but one head of the country's military hydra. In a larger sense,  the Chinese Navy should be regarded as a placeholder for the sea, air,  land, and space-related capabilities that China will bring to bear  against an adversary in the maritime realm of conflict.

US strategic planners have been increasingly concerned with China's  recent development and impending deployment of certain air, land, and  space-related capabilities, which affect Taiwan's ability to impede a  Chinese naval advance toward its shores and also the US Navy's capacity  to project its military power in the Straits. Some of these developments  include an aircraft carrier, anti-ship ballistic missiles, stealth  fighter-aircraft and anti-satellite missiles.

In January, the Chinese media published a video of China's first aircraft carrier undergoing sea trials. The bid to field a Chinese aircraft carrier may  look like an unwieldy proposition because of the indomitable presence of  11 US aircraft carrier groups policing the world's oceans. The Chinese  carrier, which is an upgraded version of a partially-built vessel  purchased from Ukraine in 1998, is generations behind American carrier  technology. However, China's plan to field an aircraft carrier since the  1990s is not an arms-race-type rejoinder to the US. It is simply borne  out of a pragmatic need to use carrier-based aviation to better protect  China's surface fleet. The Chinese Navy has calculated that an aircraft  carrier with 40 aircraft on board would generate a combat effectiveness  of between 200 and 800 land-based fighters in air-support functions. A  Chinese carrier, supported by a fleet of attack submarines, may allow  the rest of the Chinese Navy to secure an area up to the 'second-island  chain' stretching from the Aleutians to Papua New Guinea.

China's fledgling anti-ship missile capability threatens US aircraft  carriers. In early January, the US Navy's intelligence director acknowledged that China's anti-ship ballistic missile, the DF-21D,  had finally reached its initial operating capability, leaving US  carriers open to attack. Previously, US observers were sceptical that  Chinese engineers could master the complicated science of hitting a  manoeuvrable target such as a moving aircraft carrier. With the  impending deployment of the DF-21D, its immediate role would be to deter  the US Seventh Fleet from approaching the Taiwan Strait. The key target  would be the USS George Washington, the aircraft carrier  assigned to this fleet which carries the US Navy's best strike aircraft  capable of attacking Chinese sea, air and land targets and destroying  vital Chinese radar systems. These carried-launched aircraft have a  range of less than 1,000 kilometers. Therefore, the DF-21D, which shares  a similar range, is intended to keep the aircraft belonging to the  George Washington out of lethal range.

The US and Taiwanese airborn-early-warning aircraft that support  their respective navies are also not immune from attack. It was reported  in early January that the Chinese military successfully test flew their  own indigenously-built fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft known  as the J-20 "Black Eagle", designed to creep up and destroy those  aircraft that would otherwise provide real-time intelligence and  surveillance of a Chinese naval attack. Until recently, US officials  have played down China's ability to make advances on its J-20 program  launched in the 1990s. In fact, the American defence community previously estimated that the J-20 would be operational only around 2020 when it is more likely to be ready in about three years from now.

Lastly, the Chinese military is very close to fielding an  anti-satellite missile capability that stands to cripple the network of  satellites that the US military depends upon to marshal and coordinate  its air, land and naval forces effectively. Chinese military planners  realize that the US military satellite and communications network is  both its greatest strength and greatest weakness. While it makes the US  military more effective and efficient, it is also reduced to fighting  'blind, deaf and dumb' without it. In January 2007, Beijing successfully destroyed one of its own weather satellites with a direct ascent anti-satellite  missile, based on the same missile airframe used for the DF-21D, hence  proving that it could obliterate US satellites in low earth orbit.

These developments bolster the Chinese military's confidence in  achieving what it views to be its national security imperatives. Whether  or not China does possess hegemonic aspirations, it is becoming clear  that Beijing is removing the shackles that previously placed limits on  its strategic reach. In particular, as a recent US Office of Naval Intelligence report has  noted, the Chinese Navy has begun removing the geographical limits to  its 'offshore defense' thinking. It appears to have been given the  mandate to venture "as far as [its] capabilities will allow it to  operate task forces out at sea with the requisite amount of support and  security." The deployment of a Chinese naval convoy to the Gulf of Aden to protect the country's shipping from Somali pirates in early January  is instructive. The question that should now be asked is how much  maritime security is really enough for Beijing. The answer determines  how far Beijing will ask its navy to go.

This article first appeared on the International Relations & Security Network (ISN).

Graham Ong-Webb

Dr Graham Ong-Webb is a Managing Editor with IHS Jane's. He holds a PhD from the Department of War Studies, King's College London.

All articles

More in China, East & SE Asia

See all