Speaking at the Rand Corporation this week, Defense Secretary Mark Esper offered the misplaced assessment that China is simply no match for the U.S. Navy.
Esper used his speech, first reported by Business Insider, to explain “that China cannot match the United States when it comes to naval power. Even if we stopped building new ships, it would take [China] years to close the gap when it comes to our capability on the high seas.” The defense secretary added, “Ship numbers are important, but they don’t tell the whole story. They do not address the types of ships and the capabilities of the vessels being counted, the skill of the crews that operate them, the prowess of the officers that lead them, or the ways in which we fight and sustain them.”
This is only partly true.
The U.S. Navy is the finest-trained and best-equipped of any in the world. Its submarine forces are exceptionally capable, cultured towards accepting and managing great risk, and crewed by some of the most courageous people on this planet. The same principle applies to much of the surface fleet. That said, it is a mistake to overestimate the Navy’s relative strength against China. The People’s Liberation Army-Navy is growing rapidly in size, capability, and experience. Moreover, Beijing’s priority procurement focuses have been specifically chosen for their prospective ability to impose chaos on the U.S. Navy. Most notable are China’s anti-ship ballistic missile forces. During conflict, these missiles would threaten any U.S. aircraft carriers that entered beyond the first island chain and into the South China Sea. China’s new air defense destroyers are also impressive, as is the next generation of Chinese submarines. The Trump administration cannot afford to underestimate these realities, especially amid rising tensions over Taiwan.
This is not to say that China’s own naval gloating is credible. It is not. Beijing likes to mask its fears over what a defeat in war would mean for the Communist Party, with excessive claims of the annihilation it could deliver on American fleets. Still, China’s navy is no paper tiger.
As Esper pointed out, the U.S. Navy is belatedly attempting to upgrade its capabilities in the face of these threats, especially with regards to long-range anti-ship missiles, new undersea sensor-strike platforms, and unmanned aircraft. But these improvements will take time to come online. Admirals should have lost their commands for failing to embrace these truths before now and for persisting in the delusion that their carriers and air wings could operate with impunity in shaping the balance of any war with China.
That admiralty concern speaks to a broader issue. While Esper rightly salutes the “officers that lead” the fleet, the idea that only the best officers are promoted to lead at sea is a cozy narrative. One which would have a little more credibility had the Navy not canned one of its best officers, Capt. Brett Crozier. Crozier was relieved of his command of the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier earlier this year after he tried to protect his crew. Crozier’s plight speaks to a command climate in which admirals can do no wrong, and commanding officers in the fleet are forced onto a tightrope between political expediency and mission success.
Esper cannot afford to underestimate these challenges as he did this week. Nor should he have gloated that the U.S. could suspend its shipbuilding program and still retain a multiyear advantage over China. Such rhetoric only plays to the dangerous delusions of Democrats that they can cut defense spending and retain American security.
Put simply, China poses a preeminent threat to American security and the country’s way of life (and that of our allies). It is governed by an evil ideology, but its forces demand prudent respect.
