The constant expansion of China’s naval fleet has become an increasing concern for US naval commanders. Not only does China have the largest navy in the world, but its numerical advantage over the US is also growing. Some experts estimate that China can build three warships in the time it takes the US to build one.
This issue, along with China’s growing aggression in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, is likely weighing on the mind of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin as he joins top military figures from the region at the Shangri-La Dialogue this weekend in Singapore.
However, there may be a potential solution that is within reach for the US – leveraging the high-spec, affordable naval equipment being built by its allies, South Korea and Japan. By purchasing ships from these countries or even building ships designed by the US in their shipyards, the US can bridge the gap with China in a cost-effective way.
A Contender for China’s Type 055: A Global Leader
China’s navy currently has around 340 warships, while the US has fewer than 300. The Pentagon estimates that China’s fleet will grow to 400 in the next two years, while the US fleet will only reach 350 by 2045. But it’s not just the sheer size of China’s navy that is raising concerns; some argue that China’s warships have more firepower than their US counterparts.
For example, China’s Type 055 destroyer is considered one of the world’s leading warships. With a displacement of 12,000 to 13,000 tons, the Type 055 is larger than typical destroyers and packs a formidable punch. It boasts 112 vertical launch system cells that can fire air-to-air and anti-ship missiles, surpassing the 96 cells on the newest US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It also features sophisticated radar systems and anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
While China has been rapidly building Type 055 destroyers since 2014 and recently commissioned its eighth vessel, the US has faced delays in the construction of its Zumwalt-class destroyers. Although construction began five years earlier, only two Zumwalt-class destroyers have entered service so far.
Some Western analysts suggest that South Korea’s Sejong the Great-class destroyers may be on par or even surpass China’s Type 055 destroyers. With a displacement of 10,000 to 12,000 tons, the Sejong destroyers are slightly smaller but have more firepower, featuring 128 vertical launch system cells and a wide range of missile capabilities. These ships can engage in multiple scenarios simultaneously and are capable of defending against ballistic missiles.
High Specification, Low Cost
Japan also boasts “world-class” destroyers, armed with 96 vertical launch system cells that can fire anti-ballistic and anti-submarine missiles. These destroyers excel in sensor technology, and in November last year, they demonstrated their capability to destroy ballistic missiles outside the Earth’s atmosphere.
The cost comparison between Japan’s Maya-class destroyers and the US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers is crucial. While each Maya destroyer costs around $1 billion, the Arleigh Burkes have a price tag of $2.2 billion. The Mayas offer both quantity and quality, with high specifications at a relatively low cost and an efficient production timeline.
Japan’s naval prowess extends to its Mogami-class frigates as well. These stealthy, high-speed warships, weighing 5,500 tons, are equipped with 16 vertical launch system cells that can launch air-to-air and anti-ship missiles. With a crew of just 90 and a cost of around $372 million each, the Mogami frigates are a cost-effective option.
Comparison of costs with China’s Type 055 is challenging due to the opacity of the Chinese system. Estimates range from $925 million to $2.6 billion for each vessel.
The Secret Weapon of Asia
So, what makes shipyards in South Korea and Japan so competitive? Unlike the US, Japan’s defense contracts rarely experience cost overruns. Manufacturers are compelled to meet their estimates, ensuring absolute commitment to their agreements. Schuster, a former operations director at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center, commends this approach and criticizes the US for overspending on platforms like the Zumwalt-class destroyers and littoral combat ships.
The three Zumwalt destroyers of the US Navy have a price tag of approximately $8 billion each, but their role within the fleet remains uncertain. Additionally, some of the US Navy’s littoral combat ships, costing over $350 million each, may be decommissioned before reaching one-third of their lifespan.
Time for Rethinking?
The naval vessels produced by Japan and South Korea incorporate US technology, weapons, spy radars, and the Aegis combat system. This collaboration allows the three navies to operate seamlessly together, as demonstrated in joint exercises earlier this year.
If US, Japanese, and South Korean ships use similar technology and can operate together, why does the law prevent the US from building some of its ships in Japanese and South Korean shipyards?
The ban is not solely about security concerns; it also aims to preserve jobs and expertise in the US shipbuilding industry. In 2019, the US shipbuilding industry contributed approximately 400,000 jobs and $42.4 billion to the country’s GDP. The industry comprises 154 shipyards across 29 states, with over 300 dedicated to shipbuilding or ship repair.
The US military is a significant source of demand for these shipbuilders. While less than 3% of vessels delivered in 2020 were destined for US government agencies, 14 of the 15 large deep-draft vessels were meant for the US Navy and the US Coast Guard.
Making any moves that could be perceived as a threat to such a vital industry would be politically tense. Naval construction representatives argue that more should be spent on the national industry to attract and retain a quality workforce.
Nevertheless, proponents of outsourcing argue that leveraging the assistance of allies offers a more immediate solution. They point out that the US already outsources designs abroad; for instance, its Constellation-class frigates are based on an Italian design, and Japan has been proposed as a possible source for future plans.
Schuster believes that designs alone are not enough, emphasizing that the US needs more ships now. Enlisting Japan’s help in shipbuilding would address this issue until the US can renew and expand its shipyards, a process that most defense analysts estimate will take 10 years.
Retired South Korean Admiral Kim believes that naval construction partnerships create a win-win situation for everyone. Herzinger also advocates for re-evaluating the law, highlighting that Japan and South Korea build high-quality ships on time and within budget, which the US has lost the ability to do.
In conclusion, exploring collaborations with South Korea and Japan in naval construction could offer the US a viable solution to bridge the gap with China’s expanding naval fleet. While the US must consider the economic and political implications, it’s clear that rethinking current laws and leveraging the expertise and affordability of its allies can help maintain its naval superiority in the long run.
This article is an adaptation and does not represent the views or opinions of Ratingperson.
Ratingperson