Undersea Dragons

China's Maturing Submarine Force

Lyle Goldstein and William Murray

goldstel@nwc.navy.mil murrayw@nwc.navy.mil
(401)-841-6982                       (401)-841-6984

This article will appear in the Vol. 28, No. 4 (Spring 2004) issue of 
International Security

Note:  The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the official viewpoints of the Department of the Navy or the U.S. Government.

Despite new tensions surrounding the March 2004 presidential elections on Taiwan, the United States and the People's Republic of  China (PRC) have witnessed over the last two years an impressive and unexpected warming of relations.[1]  Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there have been a series of high-level meetings between the countries' leaders.  China backed United States military intervention in Afghanistan and actively supports the new regime of Hamid Karzai in Kabul.[2] The past year has seen substantial United States - Chinese cooperation in the sphere of counterterrorism, including the sharing of intelligence and the arrest of several suspected terrorists.[3] Surprising many, Beijing has supported the United States on all major United Nations Security Council resolutions related to the recent Iraq war.  Even more significant, American observers have been profoundly impressed with China's quiet efforts to resolve the nuclear standoff on the Korean peninsula.[4]

WhileMany are convinced that a major corner has been turned in United States-China relations, with Beijing embracing a much more pro-American foreign policy.  An alternative explanation however, holds that Chinese leaders have instead opted for a pause in the evolving Sino-American strategic rivalry. Diplomatic gestures support the optimistic view of United States-China relations, but close inspection of Chinese military development provides ample evidence for both caution and concern.

Indeed, while the United States military remains focused on the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, and and Central Asia, China continues its rapid military modernization.  As part of an increasing maritime focus, significant aircraft and destroyer purchases indicate a broad effort to improve combat capabilities.  There is little evidence however, that China will endeavor to field carrier battle groups.[5]  Moreover, Chinese airpower is constrained by weak aerial refueling capabilities, and its surface fleet lacks adequate air defense.[6]  Alternatively, preliminary indications suggest that submarines will lead China's new maritime strategic orientation.[7]

This development is demonstrated most clearly by China's unprecedented signing of a contract with Russia for eight new Kilo-class diesel submarines in May 2002.  Contrary to Western forecasts, China's confidence in imported Kilos has not halted domestic production of the new Song-class diesel submarine.[8]  In addition, China's nuclear propulsion program will soon field the first of its second-generation vessels, which will include both attack submarines and strategic missile boats.  Finally, the PLA Navy (PLAN) is undertaking an overhaul of the submarine force's weaponry, training, recruitment, and doctrine.  A Chinese appraisal of future naval warfare concludes, "The prospect for using submarines is good, because of their covertness and power.… Submarines are menaces existing anywhere at any time."[9] According to another s Chinese analyst, "Submarines are the maritime weapons posing the greatest threat to an aircraft carrier formation.  Submarines are also our Navy's core force."[10]

Recognizing this priority, the 2002 Department of Defense (DoD) report to the United States Congress on Chinese military capabilities concludes, "The PLA Navy likely intends to maintain a large submarine force."[11]  Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt (U.S. Navy, ret.), a close observer of the Chinese navy, similarly contends, "Submarines are an essential ingredient in the…maritime strategy of China," and calls for focused research on China's submarine force.[12]

Unclassified studies of Beijing's ability to conduct undersea warfare are rare.  Unfortunately, the analyses that have been available to the wider academic community are also misleading, built on highly problematic assumptions.  In particular, Michael O'Hanlon's article in International Security, although relatively accurate Unfortunately,concerning the prospects for an amphibious invasion, perilously simplifies the challenge posed by China's submarine force.[13]  This sanguine approach reflects a broader inclination within the American strategic studies community.  Indeed, few in the United States national security establishment view Chinese military modernization as a potential menace,[14] especially given the immediate nature of other threats such as terrorism and proliferation.  Many analysts make the all-too-frequent mistake of extrapolating from decades of peace in the Taiwan Strait.  A deeper understanding of Chinese security policy, however, suggests that peace in the Strait during most of the Cold War (since the 1960s) was the consequence of the virulent Sino-Soviet conflict that focused Beijing's attention elsewhere, rather than the product of a stable political reality.  With Soviet tanks poised to drive on Beijing, Taiwan was not an primary consideration for China's leaders.  Since the end of the Cold War, the East Asian strategic landscape has fundamentally changed, and growing Chinese power and nationalism make the status quo in the Taiwan Strait especially precarious.

Given the persistence of this troubling scenario, together with China's increasing maritime strategic focus, this article seeks to assess China's evolving submarine force and its likely impact on international security.  The first section describes the PLAN submarine force's emerging order of battle, consisting of both conventionally-powered, and nuclear-powered vessels.  The second section focuses on the all-important human and institutional dimensions that will support the major undersea platforms.  The third section places the analysis into a political context:  the crucial Taiwan scenario.  The final section develops a sketch of emerging PLAN submarine doctrine for warfare against the United States Navy.  We come to the preliminary conclusion that a dramatic shift in Chinese underwater htmirations and capabilities is under way, and that submarines are emerging as the centerpiece of an evolving Chinese quest to control the East Asian littoral.

An Asymmetric Solution for the Littoral

The PRC has long pursued a potent submarine force.  Indeed, submarines were highlighted in the founding doctrine of the PLAN, as outlined by the very first commander-in-chief, Xiao Jingguang.[15]  Though China succeeded in amassing a rather large force over the decades of the Cold War, these efforts were constrained by Maoist excesses, which tended to retard the technical and organizational progress so critical to building, maintaining and operating a first class undersea fleet.  Today's China is vastly altered since the era of Mao.  Now, China is poised to make a broad effort toward creating a submarine fleet that is both large, and modern.

CONVENTIONAL SUBMARINES

On 2 May 2003, China revealed that 70 PLAN submariners had perished in an undersea accident.  Details of the tragedy, hardly China's first submarine accident,[16] have gradually emerged.  Preliminary examination showed that the submarine had not suffered any damage and all victims were confirmed to have died of acute suffocation."[17]  Most likely, the accident resulted from the failure of a critical air intake valve to open.[18]  Regardless of the exact cause of this accident, the event raises troubling questions about safety procedures and the fundamental state of crew training on board PLAN submarines.  The Financial Times reported that the recent incident "cast a spotlight on China's aging and ill-equipped submarine fleet."[19]  But it would be a mistake to extrapolate from this incident and assume that the PLAN submarine force is incompetent and obsolete.  Such a perspective fails to recognize that submarine accidents have afflicted all of the major submarine powers.  Indeed, as the Kursk disaster and also the US Navy's near loss of the USS Dolphin in May 2002 illustrate, even the most mature submarine forces are not immune to serious accidents. 

Beijing responded to the accident with an unprecedented degree of candor.  In a high profile visit carried on national television shortly after the initial announcement, new President Hu Jintao and ex-President Jiang Zemin traveled to the submarine's Lushun base to console the families and inspect the vessel.[20]  In a subsequent political development , the PLAN's leader since 1996, Adm. Shi Yunsheng, was relieved and replaced by Adm. Zhang Dingfa.[21]  This shakeup at the top may or may not herald a new accountability in Chinese governance, but it is already certain that the submarine incident is having a profound effect on China's navy.  In particular, ADM Zhang's background as a submariner -- his predecessor was an aviator -- is one of many signs that the PLAN is accelerating its efforts in the realm of undersea warfare.[22]

The scale of China's $1.6 billion Kilo purchase from Russia suggests that PLAN strategists continue to view diesel submarines as a vital asset.  The eight new Kilos, all project 636s, Russia's top-of-the-line conventionally powered submarines, will augment the two 636s and the two somewhat more limited project 877s that China already possesses.  Combined, these twelve impressive submarines will over the next few years supplement China's nearly thirty aging Romeos, approximately twenty Mings (an indigenously produced modified Romeo), and its five or more of the newer Song-class submarines to become a formidable prospective undersea opponent.

Of all China's submarines, the Kilo is the most formidable.  It is well respected in the West, and is very quiet, employing a variety of advanced noise reduction measures including sound-dampening tiles, a raft-like shock absorbing base, and a seven-blade propeller to achieve its noteworthy stealth.  The Kilo is as quiet as the improved version of the United States Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine.[23] Double-hulled, it can dive to three hundred meters, has a maximum underwater speed of seventeen knots, and a crew of fifty two.  China’s Kilos can launch Russia's heavyweight wire-guided Test-71 ME, as well as 53-65KE wake-homing torpedoes.[24]

            The eight new Kilos, for which China has asked for "expedited" delivery within five years, will incorporate a number of significant upgrades.[25]  They will likely possess superior batteries (correcting a long-standing problem with exported Kilos), an enhanced digital sonar system, slower turning screws, and quieter main engines.[26]  Moreover, their weaponry will be state of the art.  They will be equipped with the versatile and potent Klub weapon control system that will allow them to fire the 3M-54E antiship cruise missiles (ASCM).  This  fearsome missile feature supersonic terminal homing and a 120 nautical mile range.  Additional Klub weapons the Russians will likely offer for sale include ballistic trajectory antianti-submarine and antisurface rocket thrown torpedoes.[27]  The new Kilos may very well deploy Russia’s supercavitating Shkval torpedo.  A recent Chinese discussion of these weapons offers the following characteristics for the Shkval: it weighs 2.7 tons, is 8.2 meters long and 533 mm wide, and has a range of 6-12 km with a maximum depth of 400 meters.  The speed is given as in excess of 200 knots, which is roughly three times faster than any torpedo carried by Western submarines.  Disturbingly, this article claims the Shkval system may already be operational within the PLAN submarine force.[28] Another source suggests that China may be fabricating its own supercavitating torpedo.[29] Chinese periodicals also evince a great interest in defensive armaments for submarines, including noisemakers and other antitorpedo systems, as well as surface-to-air missiles for use against antisubmarine warfare (ASW) aircraft.[30]

            Air independent propulsion (AIP) technology promises to revolutionize the combat potential of future diesel submarines.[31] When submerged and operating on batteries, modern diesel submarines are notoriously difficult to detect -- and in many cases are even quieter than their modern nuclear counterparts.  This stealthiness is the single most valuable tactical feature of conventional submarines, enabling them, much like a sniper on land, to lie quietly in wait for enemy ships. Diesel submarine batteries require recharging every few days, however, which forces the submarine to sacrifice stealth by running its noisy diesel engines to generate electricity to charge the batteries.  When running its diesel engines, the submarine must raise its snorkel mast to take in outside air to satisfy the engine's enormous appetite for oxygen.  This protrusion provides a significant radar and infrared target for opposing forces to find.  Air independent propulsion, on the other hand, provides the means for diesel submarines to forgo these vulnerable snorkeling periods through continuous and quiet charging of the submarine's batteries by generating electricity using large stores of liquid oxygen.[32]

Although AIP-equipped diesel submarines cannot match the endurance or speed characteristics of nuclear submarines, AIP does permit diesel submarines to remain quietly submerged for weeks at a time.  The tactical advantages that this near independence from snorkeling brings has led all the European submarine manufacturers to offer AIP as an option on their newest export classes.  The Pakistani navy recently accepted a French AIP system for its most modern imported submarine.[33] There is little reason to believe that the Chinese will settle for less.  In fact, Chinese naval periodicals indicate a very significant Chinese interest in AIP.[34]  Even Chinese-built diesel submarines may soon appear with AIP.  Analysts noted in 2001 that China's twentieth Ming-class submarine was 2 meters longer than its predecessor, leading to speculation that it was a test bed for an AIP system.[35]  A major center for AIP research in China is the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics.  Illustrating the high priority of this research in China, the institute was visited by Jiang Zemin in 1999.  The Dalian institute has apparently engaged in a substantive scientific exchange on fuel cell technology with German institutes, the world's leaders in fuel cells for submarines.[36]

            The 2002 DoD report to Congress on Chinese military modernization supports the idea that the Chinese are pursuing AIP, stating, "A new advanced version of the Song-class conventional submarine is expected to incorporate advanced AIP."  The same report details other Song innovations: a skewed seven-blade propeller, submerged ASCM launch capability, flank array sonar of French design, and German diesel engines.[37]  The PLAN intends the Song to be a modern replacement for its Mings and Romeos as well as a capable peer to its imported Kilos.  Some disagree.  Preliminary reports on the May 2002 Kilo sale projected that the purchase might signify the death knell for the Song program.[38]  Indeed, the five years that marked the interval between launches of the first two Songs did suggest profound engineering and design troubles.  But the completion of the second Song in 2001, and a third Song in 2002, with continued design improvements from their predecessors, the most obvious of which is the removal of the notch in the leading edge of the sail, suggest instead that the program is going forward in tandem with the Kilo purchase. 

The new sail on the Song is a matter of some misunderstanding.  One analyst wrote in Jane's International Defense Review, "Starting with the third vessel, the Song (Type 039) submarine is very close to the French Agosta 90B in external shape.  The height of the sail has been lowered in order to increase stability underwater.”[39]  It is apparent, however that the sail was not lowered.  Instead, the notch on the forward half of the sail was covered up by extending the top edge of the sail forward.   This becomes obvious after a close examination of photos of the Song before and after the correction.  Fortunately, several unclassified photos include human figures enabling relatively accurate (if unsophisticated) calculations regarding the height of the sail.  Design considerations bolster the argument that the Song's sail height was not lowered.[40]  The "smoothing" of the sail would doubtless make the flow of water around it much quieter.  Thus, the speculation that the Song was unstable underwater -- the supposed rationale for "lowering" the sail -- is also suspect.  To be sure, the five year gap in between hulls one and two is indicative of some serious problems.  But these problems may well be less significant than early Western appraisals suggested.[41]

If this submarine is better than originally estimated, then it should not be surprising that multiple sources report that several more of these vessels are being built.[42]  According to Rear Adm. Eric P. McVadon, (U.S. Navy, ret.), an authority on the Chinese navy, the Song has entered serial production.[43]  Another analyst even states that as many as ten Songs may be under construction, in two different shipyards.[44]  Considerable sunk costs in the Song program will certainly also propel this program forward.  China's continuing acquisition of Songs, while simultaneously purchasing Kilos, does suggest that the PLA submarine force is in the midst of a major near-term buildup.

NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION

Even PRC sources concede that China's Han nuclear attack submarine (SSN) and Xia nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) were not only noisy but also posed serious hazards to their crews.[45]  Such early problems were doubtlessly exacerbated because both first-generation nuclear submarines were designed and built during the tumultuous Cultural Revolution, 1966-69.  Indeed, the chief designer of these vessels Huang Xuhua, at one point, was sentenced to raising pigs.  Subsequently, a group of Red Guards even condemned him to death, a sentence that was only commuted with the direct intervention of Premier Zhou Enlai.[46]  Nuclear submarine design is sufficiently challenging without such blatantly deleterious political intrusions on the process and PLAN nuclear propulsion paid a heavy price.

Despite these deficiencies, the PLAN continues to operate both classes of vessels.  The problem-plagued Xia SSBN has just emerged from a major overhaul,[47] and the Chinese press continues to extol sorties by China's Han nuclear attack submarines -- even claiming that they played a role in the 1996 Taiwan Straits crisis.[48] Exemplifying the importance that the PLAN attaches to its nuclear submarines, a recent Chinese article claims that Beijing's nuclear submarines are first among several factors (ranked ahead of nuclear weapons) that would stay Washington's hand in a future Taiwan crisis.[49]

            The PLAN is actively pursuing successors to its problem plagued first-generation nuclear submarines.  The new Type 093 SSN will soon succeed the Han, the last of which was commissioned in 1990.  Western sources suggest that the Type 093 will be technologically similar to the Russian Victor III, possessing enhanced sonar capabilities and advanced quieting.[50]  A recent PRC article claims that the powerful indigenous reactor will propel the Type 093 to speeds exceeding 40 knots.  The same report suggests that the 093 will be comparable in combat performance to the U.S. Los Angeles class SSN.[51]  Other Chinese media reports boast that the new Chinese nuclear attack submarine will not be left behind by the latest U.S. Sea Wolf class.[52]  American submariners may well scoff a such claims, but Western analysts underestimated the technical capabilities of late Soviet era submarines too.[53]  A bow-on photograph of the vessel in dry dock suggests that the ship has both upper and lower bow sonar assemblies, as well as flank arrays.  A Chinese report claims the 093 will have 65 cm torpedo tubes, which suggests it will be able to carry Russia's largest wake-homing torpedo -- one developed specifically to destroy aircraft carriers.[54]  The premier 093 was launched in 2002.[55]

            Production of the 2^nd generation SSBN, known as the Type 094, appears to be well underway.  Chinese sources assess that the Xia's successor aims to have a comparable acoustic signature with that of the very quiet Russian Typhoon.[56]  The first of the Type 094 SSBNs may have been launched in 2003, on schedule to become operational in 2005.  A second type 094 by 2008 is a distinct possibility.  A larger displacement SSBN, Type 095, which would carry a more capable set of ballistic missiles may also be planned.[57]  The ample space devoted to discussing SSBN operations in China's journal of naval warfare, Jianchuan Zhishi, implies that the PLAN's determination to develop a functional SSBN force remains strong.[58] Regarding SLBM development, a Japanese source suggests that the PLAN's old Golf-class submarine has been engaged in tests of the new JL-2 Submarine launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) since 1995.[59]

            The JL-2 promises to be a formidable SLBM.  Solid fueled, with a projected range of 8,000 km, it is 13 m long, 2 m wide, and weighs 42,000 kg.  Physically it is roughly comparable to the United States' Trident D-5.[60]  The JL-2 will reportedly carry either a solitary one megaton warhead or alternatively three to eight multiple independent reentry vehicles with nuclear yields of up to 150 kilotons, in addition to penetration aids.  It is expected to maneuver in flight using stellar and GPS navigational inputs, and may have a circular error probability accuracy of between 150 and 300 m.[61]  This weapon and its successors, so it seems, are being built with an eye on developments in United States national missile defense.  

Taken as a whole, Chinese efforts in developing nuclear submarines suggest a measured commitment to the establishment of a blue water capability over the longer term, which complements strong efforts made in the near term to secure the littoral.  Evidently, not all PLAN thinkers are satisfied with incremental development of the nuclear force.  One Chinese naval strategist, for example, recently called for a future force of twelve SSBNs and thirty SSNs to augment a fleet of sixty six conventional submarines.[62]

Human Resources and Institutional Dimensions

A central precept of Maoist strategy, and therefore of PLA doctrine during most of the Cold War, held that force of will trumps technology in warfare.  Deng Xiaoping led a technocratic revolution against Maoist doctrines, sparking China's spectacular economic growth of the last two decades.  "High-tech" also became a buzzword in the PLA during that era as China started to replace obsolete weapons systems.  Recently, however, study of the United States military and the wars that the United States fought through the 1990s has led the PLA to rediscover the human factor.  Beijing clearly recognizes the extraordinary emphasis that the United States military places on education and training.   The PLAN, in particular, is making serious efforts to redress recognized deficiencies in recruitment, training, logistics, and underwater technology research.

RECRUITMENT AND EDUCATION

While reducing personnel levels overall, the PLAN is also building communities of intellectual excellence, including the submarine force.  Recognizing that pay incentives are needed to attract qualified specialists in China's competitive labor market, the PLAN has initiated generous pay increases in recent years.  For example, some ranks saw a salary increase of 100 per cent in 1999-2000.[63]  In screening applicants, the PLAN gives priority to "outstanding student cadres whom are willing to volunteer for submarine service."[64]  Chinese military leaders, having identified a severe deficiency in developing competent noncommissioned officers, created a policy to redress this problem that is apparently producing an entirely new corps of specialists for undersea warfare.[65]  The PLA is also putting the finishing touches on a rigorous system of professional military education, including an initiative that replicates the United States ROTC program.  Using the United States military as a benchmark, the new Chinese system of military education is such that one Chinese submarine force admiral's resumé reads similarly to a United States counterpart's: Adm. Zhang Xizhao completed two tours at the Qingdao Submarine Academy and one each at the Nanjing Naval Command and Staff College and at the PLA's National Defense University in Beijing.[66]

The Qingdao Submarine Academy has recently undertaken a sweeping program of reform.  In a rigorous process of self-criticism, the academy's leadership concluded that "basic theories have often been stressed at the expense of operating skills."  Focusing on its core mission, the leadership has concluded that the only appropriate "yardstick" for evaluating "without mercy…existing teaching materials, including personnel and facilities" was "whether or not the relevant units are able to fight under hi-tech conditions." New courses have been added, student exchange is now encouraged, and "teaching modes marked by theory-to-theory 'indoctrination' were smashed."  In addition, the reforms have introduced interdisciplinary research and a new focus on applying theory to command decisions, "flexibly dealing with sudden incidents, as well as upgrading the students' psychological quality for fighting in a complicated environment."[67]

Another segment of the PLAN's education reform program concerns strategic research.  There is an increasingly discernible trend in Chinese military periodicals toward the objective and methodical study of lessons learned from the study of relevant campaign histories.  Although detailed discussion of the Battle of the Atlantic during World War II is discernible in these periodicals as early as the 1980s,[68] the pace of publication and the sophistication of the analyses has increased considerably.  Undersea warfare figures prominently in these analyses.  Hitler's U-boat campaign is of great interest to Chinese strategists,[69] as is Germany's broader evolution as a maritime power.[70] There is also extensive coverage of United States submarine exploits against Japan in the Pacific War.[71]  As highlighted elsewhere in this article, PLAN specialists continue to study Soviet tactics and strategy, in addition to other more contemporary submarine campaigns, such as the 1982 Falklands War.[72]  Thus, debates on strategy within the PLAN are now informed by an increasingly solid base of military historical research rather than ideological conformity.[73]

TRAINING REVOLUTION

Paralleling these intellectual innovations, the PLAN appears to be implementing a training revolution.  As good students of United States military operations, Chinese planners have become increasingly conscious of the imperative for joint planning and operations.[74]  Indeed the PLAN may have even exceeded the United States in selected areas of joint training.  For example, the PLAN has developed an innovative program of cross-training surface and submarine commanders.[75]  Beyond coursework and simulations, this program incorporates a system of cross-posting.  A striking facet of the PLA's effort to upgrade training is a distinct shift from rote, repetitive drills to what is described as "confrontational training", which allows for more free-play elements.  As is the case of joint operations, this notion appears to be an effort to imitate successful United States military practices.  In fact, a recent Chinese article describes China's "Fort Irwin," where "red teams" compete against an elite "blue team," with the goal of forcing the red team commanders to depart from prearranged plans and make on-the-spot adjustments.[76]  Thus, "confrontational training" or competitive, realistic war games are becoming increasingly common in the Chinese fleet, and, in particular, within the submarine force.[77]  Rounding out this trend toward interoperability, the Chinese armed forces, including the navy, have also recently executed a number of intertheater exercises.[78]

Analysts generally agree that after the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis the PLA focused on the United States as its most likely future adversary.  Training with United States capabilities in mind has driven China's submarine force to incorporate substantial innovation into its exercises.  For example, fighting the United States would likely mean that PLAN bases might be heavily damaged by air and cruise missile strikes at an early point in hostilities.  Working under this assumption, the submarine force has recently conducted a drill in which torpedoes were loaded onto a submarine at a small civilian port employing mobile cranes and other special equipment.[79]  Another recent drill focused on clearing disabled ships from a vital navigation channel.[80]

INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOGISTICS

The PLAN leadership also appears to understand that building and maintaining a world-class fleet of submarines entails a huge investment in infrastructure.  Chinese sources suggest greater attention to logistics throughout the PLA.  Planning has shifted from "charts, sand tables, and individual micro-computers," to the development of a "theater and campaign logistics command training operations system."[81] There have also been efforts at standardization to increase the maintenance efficiency of the fleet.  For example, a recent initiative sought to reduce the number of high-grade lubricating oils used by the submarine force by increasing individual oils' quality and versatility.[82]

PLA logistics training scenarios are also based on a hypothetical confrontation with the United States.  A 2001 logistics exercise focused on disguising important targets and conducting rush repairs.[83]  In the PLAN, similar exercises have focused on air defense; port security; the evacuation of people and equipment; in addition to the emergency provisioning of warships with oil, food, water, and medical supplies.[84]  In addition, seaborne supply operations have been conducted with the newest Chinese submarines.[85]  Finally, the PLA leadership recently highlighted the vital importance of naval construction units.[86]  Such units could conceivably allow the PLAN submarine force to build submarine pens for its vessels -- "dragon palaces under the sea" -- which would not only offer the submarine fleet enhanced protection but might also allow for undetected egress from port.[87]  Extensive shelters already protect the nuclear submarine fleet at Qingdao.[88]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Beijing's commitment to undersea warfare over the long term depends on developing an outstanding science and technology research system to sustain the fleet's development.  The outlines of such a system are beginning to appear.  The PLAN leadership has selected Wuhan and Harbin Universities as sites of maritime engineering excellence.  The former, which opened officially in 1999, combines the Navy Engineering Academy and the Navy Electronics Engineering Academy.  The curriculum focuses on "tackling the key problem of fusing and joining electronic information to weapons systems."[89]  The latter has colleges of nuclear propulsion and of underwater engineering.  Recent research achievements of Harbin University for the PLAN include technology for ocean bottom topographic mapping and a dual-use submersible for mine detection and deep-ocean salvage.[90] Undersea mapping, in particular, appears to be a significant PLAN priority.  Naval survey units have recently produced a three-dimensional digital chart of China's coastal waters.  This software not only conveys images for mariners but also sounds an audio alarm to warn of potential obstacles.[91] On an even more sophisticated level, Chinese naval cartographers are mapping regional deviations in the ocean's gravity, because of this force's influence on the accuracy of long-range weapons fired from submarines.[92] Among other topics that Chinese researchers are exploring are lasers for submarine detection and sophisticated remote seabed hydrophone systems.[93]

These research efforts are complemented by espionage.  Chinese hydrological research vessels maintain an increasing presence in the waters of Taiwan and Japan, prompting the suggestion that they are busy "collecting information for the (PLAN) submarine force."[94]  The director of the acoustic noise laboratory at Russia's Pacific Oceanography Institute stood trial in Vladivostok for trying to smuggle secrets to the Chinese.[95]  Of related interest, one might note the somewhat curious fact that Harbin has been selected as a premier maritime research institution, despite the city's considerable distance from the sea.  On the other hand, the university, just a few hours drive from the Russian border, is conveniently located for tapping underemployed former Soviet scientists.  Naturally, the United States is also a major target for Chinese submarine-related espionage.  The most notorious example concerns allegations against Wen Ho Lee with regard to the fate of plans for the W-88 warhead, a design optimized for SLBMs.  Less well known is another case involving alleged attempts by a Chinese graduate student at Iowa State University to illegally obtain detailed knowledge on the fabrication of Terfenol-D, a substance that promises to be crucial to future sonar system development.[96]

It would be a major mistake, however, to assume that China's future science and technology defense prospects are wholly dependent on Russian expertise.  Indeed, many United States analysts fall into the trap of extrapolating from the PLAN's historical development, gravely underestimating the impact of "systemic shocks" to that development, above all: the Korean War, the Sino-Soviet conflict, and the Cultural Revolution.  It would be an error, therefore, to predict future developments within the Chinese submarine force based on the very slow development of the Han class SSN, for example, which was begun in 1958, but only went to sea in 1974.  Given the PRC's extraordinary efforts in education and especially basic science research, the ascendance of a generation of scientific personnel trained in the West, and market incentives that have vastly enhanced the technological sophistication of contemporary China, it is not surprising that one of the United States' foremost Sinologists warns that the next generation of Chinese-made weaponry will represent a marked departure from the past.[97]

The Taiwan Scenario

The PLAN's near-term focus on diesel submarines is one of several indicators that suggest that Beijing's immediate focus is on the Taiwan problem.  Observers of the military balance across the Strait generally agree that an invasion of Taiwan will continue to elude the PLA for at least the next decade.  Despite the steady upgrading of the PLA Air Force, the revamping of Chinese special forces, and particularly the fielding of a vast array of short-range missiles, the paucity of modern amphibious landing craft among other factors makes a full-scale invasion an unlikely, if still conceivable possibility.[98]

A BLOCKADE WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS

Enhanced submarine capabilities and numbers increasingly give credence to an alternative strategy for coercing Taiwan:  the naval blockade.[99]  As an island with few resources, Taiwan may be uniquely vulnerable to this form of coercion.  The volatility of Taipei's stock market during the 1996 crisis indicates that Taiwan's entire economy could face a meltdown if confronted with determined mainland efforts to subvert it.  Moreover, the former ruling and now opposition party in Taipei, the Kuomintang, has been critical of the current Democratic Progressive Party government's tendency toward pro-independence rhetoric.  This suggests a strong possibility that the mainland could succeed in exploiting Taiwan's internal political fissures in a crisis.  In other words, Washington cannot count on a united front within Taiwan -- speedy capitulation is conceivable if Beijing confronts Taipei with a sophisticated strategy of sticks and carrots.

A recent Chinese article strongly suggests that PLA strategists are closely examining options for blockading Taiwan.  Reflecting on the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, for example, the author concludes, "The United States achieved its objective of a deterrent blockade, forcing the Soviet Union to give in."  According to this analysis, "A maritime blockade should be imposed suddenly, after thorough preparations, so as to have the effect of taking the enemy by surprise."  It is noted, moreover, that "a maritime blockade in a civil war…does not come within the scope of application of international maritime law."[100]  As another Chinese author explains:  "Once China blockades Taiwan, sea transportation would be cut, Taiwan's economy would be paralyzed and its political situation would become unstable."[101]

            Chinese diesel submarines would be the decisive force in this troubling scenario.  Employing its older submarines as mine-layers and decoys would allow China to rely on its more modern submarines to patrol north, south, and east of the island.  Even a few ship sinkings would prompt insurance brokers to revoke their coverage of merchant shipping, and commerce at Taiwan's two biggest ports, Taipei and Kaoshiung, would swiftly grind to a halt.[102]

TAIWAN'S ASW POTENTIAL

While the United States considered its options, Taiwan's navy might try to break the blockade on its own.  Its chances of success, however, would be relatively low.  Taiwan's otherwise formidable air force might well fall victim to PRC missile impacts.  Even without such strikes, Taiwan's aircraft are not well suited for ASW operations.  Indeed, a recent report suggests that out of Taiwan's twenty six S-2T Trackers, only six are operational.[103]  This is not surprising given that the aircraft have been in Taiwan's service since 1976, and were considered obsolete by the United States before that.  Taiwan's budget crunch, moreover, has cast doubt on the expected purchase of twelve P-3C Orions from the United States, so that the Taiwan navy may seek a life-extension on the S-2Ts through 2008.  The imminent delivery of the four Kidd-class destroyers from the United States will not significantly help the Taiwan navy in its ASW efforts either, even though the Kidd is potentially a capable ASW platform. 

The root cause of Taiwan's ASW woes is an inadequate number of ASW platforms overall.[104]  Finding and destroying submarines requires enormous resources.  As Owen Coté observes concerning the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II, "the price of sea control was…substantially…[higher] than the price of contesting it…"[105]

The problem is exacerbated both by the large number of submarines that China can deploy and by the nature of the area in which China's submarines will operate, much of which is characterized by shallow, noisy waters that make ASW exceedingly difficult. 

Also affecting this calculus are the rapidly improving effectiveness and ease of operation of the weapons that China's submarines will carry.  Modern wake-homing torpedoes form a particularly cogent threat against surface ships.  They also have the benefit of requiring only rudimentary submarine skills to fire, in contrast to previous torpedo-homing schemes.

Many regard submarines as the best ASW platform, and there has been much talk of expanding Taiwan's small fleet of four diesel submarines, two of which date from World War II.  Superficially, Taiwan's prospective purchase of eight modern diesel submarines from the United States would help to restore some measure of equity to the increasingly lopsided undersea balance in the Taiwan Strait.  The purchase is plagued by numerous obstacles, however, and even if it does go forward, these submarines would do little to redress China's fundamental undersea superiority.  Unlike nuclear fast attack submarines, their diesel counterparts are not well suited to searching for other submarines.  Taiwan's diesel submarines might do well in chance encounters against their mainland adversaries, but they could not conduct the wide-area sanitizing operations required to lift a blockade.  Instead, additional modern submarines for the Taiwan navy would give Taipei some offensive undersea capability, but they would probably have little effect on PRC submarine operations against Taiwan.[106]

The timing and rate of submarine acquisition also mitigates against the notion that eight new submarines will help Taiwan's ASW prospects.  As noted previously, the PLAN expects to take delivery of eight Kilos between 2005 and 2007.[107]  These ships are being simultaneously built in three different Russian shipyards, which may suggest that Beijing is in a hurry.[108]  In addition, the PLAN may well have a system for accelerating crew training given that it maintains a large force of submarines and that it already has Kilos in its arsenal.[109]  A United States Navy delegation told Taiwan officials in November, 2003 that Taiwan was unlikely to get its eight new diesel submarines before 2019.[110]   Moreover, Taiwan's crew training would likely be a major bottleneck, suggesting some additional years before the vessels are truly operational.  This time lag, even under assumptions that favor Taiwan, will still significantly widen the already substantial capability gap later in the present decade.  The aforementioned Taiwan budget crunch that affects the P-3 Orion sale also casts doubt on the proposed submarine purchase.  With the Taiwan defense budget reaching an eight-year low in 2002,[111] the $4-5 billion commitment seems unlikely.  Also complicating Taipei's calculations regarding this purchase is the ominous challenge of water space management.  To avoid the problem of fratricide, Taiwan's submarine force would have to be shielded from potential United States ASW operations.  Making this point, former Taiwan Vice Defense Minister Ku Ch'ung-lien recently warned, "Taiwan submarines [may] be mistakenly attacked."  He concluded, "[Submarines] may not necessarily meet Taiwan's actual needs.[112]

Simply stated, Taipei is unwilling or unable to devote the necessary resources to mount a credible defense against a sustained submarine campaign.  It is therefore unlikely that Taiwan will be able to cope with such a scenario at present or for the foreseeable future.  The more salient question is:  Could the United States break the blockade?  Certainly yes, but the growing capability of the PLAN submarine force will increase the risk to United States naval forces operating in the vicinity of Taiwan.

ASW IS HARD, AND GETTING HARDER

The United States ability to wage ASW has withered significantly since the end of the Cold War. O’Hanlon estimates that “in an extreme case, a United States ship or two could even be sunk” in breaking a PRC blockade of Taiwan[113]  Our analysis shows this estimate to be too optimistic – off by an order of magnitude.  The discussion below reveals the flaws in O’Hanlon’s estimate.

As one PLAN strategist correctly explains, "Attempting to track submarines in the tremendous expanse of the ocean is extremely difficult."[114] This assessment fully corresponds to US Navy experience.  Coté, for example, cites one participant in the increasingly difficult hunt for quiet Soviet submarines in the late Cold War:  "[There were] several incidents in which the entire Navy had to deploy in order to find and maintain contact on one submarine."[115]  Finding and neutralizing quiet submarines requires an intricate choreography and the integration of the specialized characteristics of multiple aircraft, surface ships, submarines, and remote cueing systems.  The more physical assets that can be devoted to the problem of finding submarines, the more likely that adversary submarines can be found and destroyed, or at least driven off.  Similarly, the more highly skilled and trained the hunters are, the more likely their success. Unfortunately, the United States Navy 's ability to field large numbers of skilled submarine hunters and ASW platforms has fallen precipitously. 

During the Cold War, United States carrier-borne S-3 Viking aircraft were effective submarine stalkers, capable of finding periscopes at long ranges with their potent radar.  But the S-3s have been taken off of their ASW mission, and have become full-time aerial refueling aircraft.  Land-based P-3 Orion ASW aircraft, have suffered a 50 per cent overall force reduction, and in most regions they no longer focus on ASW as their principal mission.  A third of the remaining P-3s are scheduled to be removed from service by 2005 due to corrosion problems.[116]  The U.S. Navy has effectively mothballed its Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS), and it has scaled back on the number and ASW prowess of its Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS)-equipped T-AGOS ships, especially by failing to build beyond the first prototype of the Impeccable-class.  The navy has been unable to adequately test that ship's Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar system due to lawsuits stemming from environmental concerns about possible harm to marine mammals.  This is a severe blow to the navy's shallow water ASW efforts given that the LFA system can provide particularly good long-range detection probabilities against modern diesel submarines in shallow waters.[117]  Significantly, only 5 of the Navy's 22 Cold War-era T-AGOS ships continue to perform ASW missions.[118]  The navy's fleet of surface combatants is also much reduced.  Such capable ASW ships as the remaining nineteen Spruance class destroyers are slated for accelerated decommissioning as a cost-saving measure.[119]  In fiscal year 2004, five Spruance destroyers are scheduled for decommissioning, as are four T-AGOS ships.[120]

During any United States attempt to break a Chinese submarine blockade, American nuclear submarines are certain to form the leading strike force.  The United States, however, now has only fifty four fast attack submarines, barely more than half of the 100 SSNs operational in 1985.[121]  Nor are current building rates particularly reassuring.[122]  The remaining United States SSNs are individually more capable than they were eighteen years ago, but whereas during the Cold War SSNs focused primarily on their blue water ASW mission, today's SSN force must divide time between ASW, surveillance operations, and most prominently, the attack of targets ashore with cruise missiles. Added to this reduction in force and shift in mission is the irreducible difficulty of finding the modern, quiet diesel submarines in China’s shallow and noisy littoral waters.

American SSNs could conduct a methodical search-and-destroy campaign against Chinese submarines, especially in the deep waters to the east of Taiwan where they can make full use of their superior technology, weapons, and training.  But as one analyst notes "shallow water is ideally suited for [Chinese] submarine operations.…[They] can hide between the layers of the underwater thermals and maneuver among the rocks and shoals, where acoustics are clouded."[123] In the vicinity of Taiwan, even the United States submarine force will be strongly tested, given the difficult environment, the large number of interfering merchant and fishing vessels that mask the quiet adversary, improvements in the PLAN submarine force's ASW weaponry, and the sheer weight of Chinese numbers.  This fundamental difficulty is exacerbated if United States SSNs are expected to operate in the Taiwan Strait, which is so shallow as to nearly preclude United States SSN operations there.[124]  Much of the East Asian littoral is comprised of shallow water, defined here as less than two hundred meters in depth. (See Figure 1)  This area, which encompasses nearly the entire Yellow and East China seas, provides severely disadvantageous conditions for United States SSN employment, weapons, and sensors.   Such conditions constitute nearly all of the waters to the west and north of Taiwan.   

Taking into account the forgoing analysis, the problems with O’Hanlon’s analysis become readily apparent.  First, he claims that the “overall outcome of [the blockade campaign] is hard to predict, given the rough parity in numbers between Chinese submarines and Taiwanese escorts.”[125]  This appraisal gives short shrift to the history of ASW warfare, which has repeatedly shown that ASW campaigns are extraordinarily resource intensive.  Thousands of United States and British escorts and aircraft were required to curtail the threat from several hundred Nazi submarines, and despite this great numerical advantage, this campaign was "a damned near run thing."[126] Similarly, during the Falklands War, the British navy expended nearly all of their ASW ordinance without sinking or disabling the two modern Argentine submarines that were active in the theater.[127]

In assessing the United States Navy’s overall present and future effectiveness against China’s submarine force, O’Hanlon’s analysis is again flawed.  He attempts to extrapolate from certain estimates regarding United States Navy effectiveness versus Soviet submarines.  Yet he ignores numerous problems with the comparison:  Diesel submarines are quieter than nuclear submarines; acoustic conditions in the littoral are much more complicated and difficult than in deep blue water; and there is no reason to believe that United States forces could rely on SOSUS hydrophones in the vicinity of Taiwan, as O’Hanlon assumes.  As demonstrated above, United States ASW is not what it was during the Cold War, nor is the likely future operating environment.  O’Hanlon’s quantitative assumptions regarding a United States ASW campaign against Chinese submarines are also not sustainable.  Thus, his notion that each Chinese submarine would only have a 20 per cent chance of detecting an adversary ship before being detected is, again, far off the mark.[128]  Our estimate is that this number could be at least 50-60 per cent if not higher.[129]  Similarly, he estimates that 75 per cent of Chinese submarines would be destroyed after one “round” of combat, a rather optimistic appraisal of United States ASW capabilities (and Chinese incompetence). [130]  Such changes in assumptions have major consequences in calculating possible United States losses.

O’Hanlon's mistaken estimates may stem from a misreading of Cold War submarine operations.  He extrapolates from a source claiming that in the late 1980s, forty United States SSNs could destroy all Soviet SSBNs in the Sea of Okhotsk within fourteen hours.[131]  He neglects, however, the original author’s caveat that this measure assumed no reaction by the Soviet armed forces, a truly bizarre assumption.[132]  The suggestion, moreover, that a few dozen Taiwan and United States ships and aircraft could adequately patrol his suggested 300,000-square-mile safe “corridor” is also highly questionable.[133]  Finally, O’Hanlon’s analysis is based on faulty estimates of Chinese submarine capabilities.  The analysis suggests that only 10 percent of China’s armed forces will have “late Cold War equivalent hardware” by 2010.  If the Song proves to be a capable platform, the Chinese submarine force in 2003 is already over that modest hurdle. Given recent developments, including especially the large new Kilo purchase and the imminent appearance of China's new SSN, there is no possibility that O'Hanlon's estimate on PLAN capabilities will hold to 2010.  Thus, O'Hanlon's conclusion that "in an extreme case, a United States ship or two could be sunk" does not meet the test of closer scrutiny.

PLAN Submarine Doctrine

Since at least 1996, the PLAN has been preparing to do battle with the United States Navy.  Consequently, PLAN submarine doctrine is developing with a distinct understanding of the asymmetric nature of its rivalry with the United States Navy. 

ASYMMETRIC TACTICS

In such an environment, PLAN submariners realize they must overcome the technological gap with innovative tactics that will allow them to confront a technically superior military.[134]  Of course, this is a condition that has prevailed in almost all of modern China's military conflicts and has therefore become deeply embedded in Chinese strategic culture.  Contemporary Chinese military journals frequently discuss the option of striking first as a key means of coping with inferiority.[135]  This finding is consistent with that of the 2002 DoD Annual Report to Congress on the Chinese military.[136]  Strategic timing is vital, but so is tactical timing.  One Chinese military author, for example, envisages the sortie of Chinese submarines from port during bad weather so that adversary ASW aircraft are temporarily grounded.[137] Speaking to reporters after a recent patrol, a PLAN submarine captain explained, "When we penetrated the first island chain, we took advantage of bad weather as cover, which did well in ensuring the concealment of our submarine."[138] Similarly, another Chinese strategist suggests that the Luzon Strait (between Taiwan and the Philippines) is ideal for submarine operations, because of the notoriously bad weather.[139] In this and like manners PLAN submariners intend to exploit the fact that hostilities are likely to take place in and around China's home waters.[140]  Thus, PLAN submarine commanders are working toward an intimate acquaintance with the topography, thermoclines, currents, and other hydrographic peculiarities of China's coast and particularly in close proximity to Taiwan.  One Chinese source says of the waters east of Taiwan:  "Owing to the enormously strong and warm western Pacific current in these waters, submarines operating there can submerge to a certain depth of water and antisubmarine sonar above the water finds it very difficult to detect them directly."[141]

A recent description of PLAN submarine exercises details operations in which the submarines stop their engines and rest either on the seabed or drift silently on a thermal layer as if "perched on the clouds."[142]  Another notes repeated practice in cloaking as a "submerged reef" and riding the rapid local currents.[143]  These peculiar phrases suggest that Chinese submariners clearly recognize the importance of having comprehensive local environmental knowledge and exploiting that knowledge to maintain stealth and other tactical advantages.

Chinese sources also note that PLAN submarines will work in conjunction with mining operations.[144] They observe that submarines played a role in the United States' campaign to mine Japanese waters during World War II, which led to the sinking of 670 Japanese ships.[145] Indeed, there is great interest in mines, and particularly deep-water rising mines.[146]  Submarines and mines are not the only underwater weapon systems receiving close scrutiny by PLAN strategists.  Minisubmarines, special operations, and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) also appear to be of great interest.[147]

Previous discussions of PLAN doctrine have noted the potentially significant fact  that China's submarine force has not been officially tasked with an ASW role.[148]  This htmect of doctrine is in transition, however, and the development of submarine ASW tactics now appears to be a priority.[149] Indeed, the latest model diesel submarines are apparently training for this mission.[150] Against the formidable passive sonar systems of the United States submarine force, Chinese submarine captains recognize that frequent resort to active pinging is tantamount to suicide.[151]  The emphasis is therefore on improving the performance of passive Chinese sonar and the incorporation of towed arrays.[152]  Another improvement is that Chinese submarines are increasingly equipped with digital (versus less capable analog) sonar systems that make extensive use of commercial off-the-shelf computer processing technology.[153]  Western diesel-electric submarines have been successful during exercises in conducting mock attacks against American nuclear submarines.[154]

Conceivably, a future Chinese submarine force could be guided to ASW engagements, cued by acoustic information obtained from remote seabed hydrophone arrays, by a form of Chinese SOSUS, which has elicited considerable PLAN interest, as noted above.[155]  Chinese military analysts are also interested in sonar countermeasures,[156] including the use of acoustic signal masking with China's extensive merchant and fishing fleets. A United States naval strategist speculates,  "[Chinese] fishing vessels would seed periscope decoys, transponder buoys, and floating radar reflectors.  Merchant ships would transmit false radar signals and would tow acoustic jammers."[157]  Describing a recent incident involving the USS Bowditch surveillance ship, one Chinese commentator observes, "Only after a Chinese fishing boat rammed and damaged its sonar equipment did the ship resentfully go away.  China used civilian to resist military, and outwitted the United States ship."[158]  This behavior may well indicate broader Chinese intentions to extensively employ civilian assets to confound the enemy in the midst of military operations.

NUMBERS MATTER

In addition, PLAN submarines will attempt to make use of their superior numbers to offset the qualitatively superior United States submarine fleet.  Thus, older and less sophisticated submarines will likely be employed to screen the higher-value assets.  Chinese sources openly describe using certain submarines as "bait."[159]  Employing this tactic, it is conceivable that United States submarines could reveal their own presence to lurking Kilos by executing attacks against nuisance Mings and Romeos.  No wonder China continues to operate the vessels, which are widely derided as obsolete by Western observers.  The threat from these older submarines cannot be dismissed out of hand.  Informal United States Navy written_testimonies suggests that the PLAN can operate the older classes of diesel submarines with surprising tactical efficiency.

            Despite increasing attention to ASW, PLAN writings leave little doubt that destruction of United States aircraft carrier battle groups is the focal point of doctrinal development.  As one PLA general recently observed:  "We have the ability to deal with an aircraft carrier that dares to get into our range of fire.…The U.S. likes vain glory;  if one of its aircraft carriers could be attacked and destroyed, people in the U.S. would begin to complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. President would find the going harder and harder."[160]  The singular PLAN focus on targeting United States carriers is likely related to the very high profile of carrier battle groups in the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis (and in virtually every other significant crisis over the past five decades).  The strike potential of a carrier's embarked air wing represents significant power projection, just as the carrier itself is symbolic of United States military might.  China clearly recognizes this significance, and has developed its submarine force to the extent that it is now the greatest Chinese threat to United States carriers.  Interestingly, Chinese sources suggest that lurking PLAN submarines inhibited the movement of United States carrier battle groups during the 1996 crisis.[161]

STALKING AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

China will rely on a new generation of air and space assets to track United States carrier battle groups.  Indeed, Beijing recently launched the second of its latest generation photoreconnaissance satellites.[162]  Also, it will soon receive Russian built A-50E early warning aircraft for surveillance of ships at sea.[163]  These new capabilities will be supplemented by merchant vessels, high-frequency direction finding, and a formidable network of spies.  Chinese planners estimate, "There is no way [for United States carriers] to evade…reconnaissance and tracking."[164]  Not surprisingly, the PLAN appears to be especially interested in developing the technology and doctrine for communicating effectively with its submarine fleet, so that its submarine captains get the most up-to-date targeting information from these remote sources.[165]  Without a doubt, achieving this capability is no easy task, but Beijing recognizes the magnitude of the problem.

            Chinese strategists do not underestimate the formidable defenses of American carrier battle groups, but they hold that success against United States capital ships is possible.  One author, for example, writes, "Although aircraft carriers have powerful submarine killer aircraft on board, and despite the fact that there are antisubmarine vessels in the formation and their magnetic and infrared detectors are very advanced, antisubmarine warfare is by no means easy to implement."[166]  China's current strategy may even be a calculated response to "vulnerabilities that the PLA has identified in the United States Navy's high-tech armory."  Thus, a Hong Kong-based military analysts suggests, "The development of the Chinese submarine force is very much based on Beijing's assessment that they have found gaps in United States capabilities.  The U.S. has a lot of trouble tracking submarines when they are under way."[167]  A top American submarine admiral's assessment does not contradict this Chinese appraisal.  In a speech before a select group of defense contractors Vice Adm. John Grossenbacher observed, "Our ASW capabilities can best be described as poor or weak."[168]

Chinese planners, in the Russian tradition, believe that a carrier battle group can be destroyed with multiwave and multivector saturation attacks with cruise missiles.  One recent analysis calculates, "In order to paralyze a carrier, there must be 8 to 10 direct hits [by] cruise missiles…and nearly half of the escort vessels have to be destroyed.  This…requires the launch of 70 to 100 anti-ship cruise missiles from all launch platforms in a single attack."[169]  The same analysis describes Russia's Cold War-era "anti-carrier forces" in great detail and concludes, "This is Russia's asymmetrical and economical answer to the threat of United States aircraft carriers.  In the Russian armed forces, no other force could surely fight this threat except submarines."[170]  Chinese fascination with the Russian Oscar-class "carrier-killer" SSGN (nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine) is evident in PLAN publications.[171]  Another article highlights the importance of saturating the carrier battle group's anti-cruise missile defenses with "numerous cruise missile salvos forming up dense waves of attacks, and with the interval between the launch of each wave being several seconds or several minutes, so that the enemy aircraft carrier formation is subjected to multiple waves of continuous, concentrated attacks.…[It will be] unable to react effectively to the follow-on waves of attack, and ultimately [will] take hits."   On this problem, Owen Coté explains, "Flying low and fast, antiship missiles are extremely difficult to defend against in the endgame of their engagements, which is why the United States Navy's traditional approach…[was] to kill the archer rather than his arrow."[172]  The serious shortfall in contemporary United States ASW limits reliance on this Cold War-era tactic.

Other strategies outlined for attacking carrier battle groups include attempts to "scatter [the] formation," allowing for defeat in detail[173] and also targeting the vulnerable ships that resupply the carrier battle group with fuel and other necessities.[174]  Chinese authors have duly noted that during World War II, seventeen aircraft carriers were sunk by submarines.[175]  PLAN strategists also draw confidence from reports of success by rather primitive diesel submarines in penetrating carrier battle group ASW screens during exercises with allied navies.[176]  According to the Chinese press, PLAN exercises in 2001 and 2002 off China's south coast were conducted "with the intervention of United States aircraft carriers in mind."[177]  Finally, aircraft carriers are seen as carrying "huge quantities of ammunition, aircraft fuel, and ship fuel," and therefore are vulnerable to "heavy losses if hit."[178]

More than simple chest-thumping, the potential Chinese submarine threat has been noted in the wider Asia-Pacific region.  An author writing in the Far Eastern Economic Review recently observed,  "Defense analysts are already questioning whether the United States…would risk sending aircraft carrier battle groups to intervene in any clash across the Taiwan Strait if China is successful in deploying an effective fleet of submarines by the end of this decade."[179]decade."[180]  O'Hanlon's vision of "the tide of [the sea] battle would be strongly against the PRC," along with Robert Ross's recent assertion that "United States maritime forces enjoy overwhelming advantages" would each seem to rest on questionable assumptions.[181]

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that China is seeking to become a first-class submarine power.  While the PLAN modernization shows impressive breadth with major new purchases of naval aircraft and surface combatants, submarines appear to be the centerpiece of China's strategic reorientation toward the sea.  The May 2002 contract for eight additional Kilos, the likely continuation of the Song program, and nuclear force modernization, taken together with the evident new priority on training, technological research and doctrinal development all suggest that Beijing recognizes the value of submarines as a potent, asymmetric answer to United States maritime superiority.  The recent ascendance of a submariner, Adm. Zhang Dingfa, to the position of commanding officer of the PLAN underlines these tendencies.  Further investments in diesel submarines, particularly when enhanced by air independent propulsion, will afford Beijing increasing near-term leverage in the East Asian littoral, while methodical nuclear modernization signifies a long-term commitment to global power projection.

projection.  As one Chinese strategist recently observed, "The scale [of recent purchases] indicates that in the coming years, China will build an offshore defense system with submarines as the key point."[182]

            In considering China's maritime modernization, Western defense analysts commonly downplay the threat, expressing deep skepticism at PLAN aptitude for employing high technology and integrating it successfully. Given China's poor record at projecting seapower in the modern era, such skepticism is reasonable, and by no means should the PLAN submarine force be considered ten feet tall.  China's submarine force  has some significant weaknesses:  a reliance on diesel submarines that have to approach the surface to snorkel; especially in the wake of the Ming 361 accident, it is evident that crew training and professionalism remain a fundamental problem; finally, there is little evidence of a robust, remote cueing capability, and probable weakness in the sphere of command and control. [183] Moreover, the data presented in this study must be viewed as both preliminary and limited, rendering the conclusions necessarily tentative.  For example, detailed information regarding the sophistication of Chinese submarine exercises, if it exists, is highly classified.

            On the other hand, the trap of projecting from the past and underestimating an opponent is timeworn folly. And to some extent,  the skeptics are correct.  China's submarines and submariners are notomnipotent, and the PLAN does not possess unassailable undersea naval capabilities that guarantee victory.  Furthermore, the US Navy is far from impotent. China has, though, clearly identified the undersea battlefield as an environment where they can have a reasonable chance of achieving their aims against a more respected likely opponent.  Furthermore, all signs show that Beijing recognizes, and is making the investments in equipment, training, and infrastructure necessary to acquire and maintain a strong and capable submarine force.  It would be a mistake to underestimate their ability to effectively use this tool in pursuit of broader strategic goals.

Here, it is useful to reflect briefly on the Israeli experience in 1973.  Just a few years earlier in the Six Day War, the Israelis had shown themselves masters of high-technology air and armored warfare, while the Egyptian armed forces had demonstrated gross incompetence.  Given that experience, Israeli analysts were not concerned by the threat from new antitank and air defense weapons imported by Egypt before 1973.  Egypt's forces put these new weapons to such deadly effect during the first days of the Yom Kippur War, however, that Israel's survival was very much in question.

Far from inevitable, the possibility of war between the United States and China is reduced by numerous factors:  the enormous volume of trade and investment between the two powers chief among them.  The same economic mechanisms are also drawing Taiwan and the PRC ever closer.  Close examination of Beijing's current terms for unification, in particular Jiang Zemin's "eight points," yield the conclusion that a political settlement of the Taiwan issue is not beyond the realm of possibility.[184]  Such an outcome would do much to forestall the tendencies toward rivalry that characterized United States-China relations during most of the 1990s.  On the other hand, the United States must hedge against the worst case and face China's rise with eyes wide open.

China is not the first land power to go to sea by investing disproportionately in submarines.  Though both Germany and the Soviet Union ultimately failed, their submarine-centric strategies were qualified successes.  Germany almost defeated Britain twice in this manner, and by the 1970s the Soviet submarine force successfully challenged United States sea control, even in such core regions as the Mediterranean.[185] Whether the PRC will succeed where Germany and the Soviet Union struggled is one of the greatest questions of maritime strategy for the twenty first century.

---

[1] This turnaround in relations was all the more surprising given the strains that accompanied the Bush Administration's early labeling of China as a "strategic competitor."  These strains came to head in the so-called "EP-3 incident" of April 2001, in which an American reconnaissance plane was damaged in a mid-air collision with an aggressive Chinese interceptor, and subsequently detained on Hainan Island after an emergency landing.

[2] See "Jiang Zemin Announces PRC Aid to Afghanistan," Xinhua News Agency, December 20, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) Document No. CPP20011220000178.

[3] Keith Bradsher, "3 in Hong Kong Agree to Face Charges in U.S.," New York Times, January 7, 2003, pg. A11.

[4] See, for example, Evan S. Medeiros and M. Taylor Fravel, "China's New Diplomacy," Foreign Affairs Vol. 82, No. 6 (November/December 2003), pp. 22-35.

[5] Despite the 2001 purchase of the aircraft carrier Varyag from Ukraine, most naval analysts are skeptical regarding China's intentions to use this platform to develop carrier aviation, because of the tremendous cost that would be necessary to make the vessel combat ready.  This viewpoint is not universal, however.  For example, one Japanese estimate notes, "It is clear that the Chinese navy has a 'blue water navy' orientation and intends to have aircraft carriers."  See[editorial], "Technical Level and Future Trends of Chinese Warships," Sekai no Kansen, July 01, 2002, pp. 96-103, FBIS Document No. JPP20020809000036. For insight into the Chinese debate on aircraft carriers, see "Zhongguo Xuyao Hangkong Mujian?  Haishi Qianting?"  [Does China need aircraft carriers?  Or submarines?], Jianchuan Zhishi [Naval and Merchant Ships], No. 247 (April 2000), p. 9.

[6] Concerning Chinese aerial refueling, see Liu Jiafeng and Sha Zhiliang, "Haitian Duijie:  Haijun Kongjun Bing Kongzhong Jiashouyou Shuenlian Jishi" [Connecting over the ocean:  A record of the naval air force's aerial refueling exercise], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 258 (March 2001), p. 5.  This narrative reveals the exercise to be one of the first of its kind, that it was limited in scope, and that many unanticipated problems developed during the course of the maneuvers.  On weak air defenses of the People's Liberation Army Navy for surface combatants, see, for example, David Isenberg, "China Buys Russian Vessels to Mount Naval Challenge to U.S.," Navy News & Undersea Technology, November 18, 2002, p. 3.

[7] Certainly, land-based aircraft and surface vessels can be an effective complement to the submarine force.

On China's new maritime strategic orientation, see, for example, Tang Fuquan, Huang Jinsheng and Zhang Yonggang, "Shin Shiji Haiyang Zhanlue Xingshi Zhanwang" [Prospects for a maritime strategy in the 21^st century], Junshi Kexue [Military Science], Vol. 15, No. 1 (2002), pp. 88-97; and Hou Songling and Chi Diantang, "Zhongguo Zhoubian Haiyu de Zhanlue Diwei he Dilu Zhanlue Jiazhi Chutan, "China's Near Seas:  Strategic Position and Geo-Strategic Importance," Dangdai Yazhou [Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies], No. 10 (2003), pp. 47-52.

[8] An example of a forecast that recently predicted the demise of the Song submarine program is Nikolai Novichkov, "China's Russian Kilo Buy May Put Song Submarine Future In Doubt," Jane's Defense Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 24 June 12, 2002, p. 3.

[9] Capt. Shen Zhongchang, Lcdr. Zhang Haiyin, and Lt Zhou Xinsheng, "The Military Revolution in Naval Warfare," in Michael Pillsbury, (ed.), Chinese Views of Future Warfare, (Washington, D.C.:  National Defense University Press, 1997), pp. 277-278.

[10] Wang Jiasuo, "Aircraft Carriers: Suggest You Keep Out of the Taiwan Strait," Junshi Wenzhai, [Military Digest], April 1, 2001, FBIS Doc. No. CPP20020326000218.

[11] 2002 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, Report to Congress Pursuant to the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2002/d20020712china.pdf, p. 21.

[12] Michael McDevitt, "Ruminations About How Little We Know About the PLA Navy," paper presented to the Conference on Chinese Military Affairs, Washington, D.C., October 10, 2000, pp. 8-9, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/China_Center/CMA_Conf_Oct00/paper14.htm.

[13] See Michael O'Hanlon, "Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2,  (Fall 2000), pp. 51-86.

[14] See, for example, the discussion of China's maritime potential in Robert S. Ross, "Navigating the Taiwan Strait:  Deterrence, Escalation Dominance, and U.S.-China Relations," International Security. Vol. 27, No. 2 (Fall 2002), pp. 67, 80.  Other examples include Bates Gill and Michael O'Hanlon, "China's Hollow Military," National Interest, No. 56 (Summer 1999), pp. 55-62; John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, "China's Search for a Modern Air Force," International Security Vol. 24, No. 1 (Summer 1999), pp. 64-94; and Avery Goldstein, "Great Expectations:  Interpreting China's Arrival," International Security, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Winter 1997/98), pp. 36-73.  An important corrective to these analyses is Thomas J. Christensen, “Posing Problems without Catching Up:  China’s Rise and Challenges for U.S. Security Policy,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4  (Spring 2001), pp. 5-40.

[15] Wang Youqi, "Mao Zedong Zhuxi Shichaguo de Qianting" [The submarine inspected by Mao Zedong], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 287 (August 2003), p. 6.  The doctrine was encapsulated in a three character phrase to guide the PRC's new navy "Qian, Kong, Kuai" -- or simply "Submarines, [Land-Based] Aircraft, and Fast [Attack Patrol Boats]."

[16] There is a report of a potentially devastating loss of a large group of skipper trainees when a Romeo-class submarine was lost in 1993.  See Joseph S.  Bermudez Jr., et al., "China and Northeast Asia, Navy," Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment, November 19, 2002, www.janes.com.  There is more clarity concerning an accident in the 1980s, which killed 10, and an even more serious incident in the 1960s in which there was only one survivor.  See Ma Ling and, Li Ming, "Why Did China Make Public the Submarine Accident?" Ming Pao, May 9, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030509000043.  The Chinese may have lost an additional Ming to a fire.  See "Ming Type 035", http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/ming.htm.  On early submarine accidents, see Bruce Swanson, Eighth Voyage of the Dragon:  A History of Chinese Seapower (Annapolis, Md.:  Naval Institute Press, 1982), p. 214.  There is also some speculation regarding a second Xia-class ballistic missile submarine that might have been "lost in a fire before it went to sea."  See Bernard Cole, The Great Wall at Sea:  China's Navy Enters the 21^st Century, Annapolis, Md.:  Naval Institute Press, 2001), p. 196, n. 46.

[17] "Valve Problem Blamed for Submarine Accident", Wen Wei Po, May 8, 2003, FBIS Document No.  CPP20030508000029.

[18] Although the PLAN has not released the results of its investigation, a number of scenarios have been suggested.  One possible sequence of events is that a crucial valve stuck shut and failed to allow exterior air to enter the submarine while the ship's diesel engines were operating.  The engines consumed all the oxygen from the ship's atmosphere and rapidly htmhyxiated the crew.  An alternative explanation is that the diesel engines failed to shut off as intended when the submarine submerged.  See "Valve Problem Blamed for Submarine Accident". A third scenario offered by Rear Adm. Lloyd Vasey (U.S.Navy, Ret.) suggests that seawater entered the ship's massive batteries, generating toxic clouds of chlorine gas that killed the crew.  See Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, "Cause of Submarine Disaster Is Mystery," Boston Globe, May 4, 2003, p. 18.

[19] James Kynge, "Hu Seeks More Modern Military," Financial Times, May 5, 2003, p.  4.

[20] Wang Chien-min "Story Behind the Truth of Submarine No. 361 Accident," Hong Kong Yazhou Zhoukan, No. 20, May 12, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030513000079.

[21] John Pomfret, "China Replaces Top Naval Officers Over Sub Disaster," Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p.  19.

[22] Significantly, ADM Zhang Lianzhong, who was PLAN commander from 1988 through 1996, was also a submariner.  On ADM Zhang Lianzhong, see Srikanth Kondapalli, "Chinese Navy's Political Work and Personnel," Strategic Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 10 (January 2000), http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_00kos01.html.

[23] Shirley Kan, Christopher Bolkcom, and Ronald O'Rourke, "China's Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions: Background and Analysis," CRS Reports for Congress, October 10, 2000, p. 61,  http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30700.pdf.

[24]"Kilo Class (Type 877/636) Diesel Electric Submarine," http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/kilo.htm.  Wire-guided torpedoes allow the shooting ship to guide the torpedo toward updated target positions, which can increase the probability of obtaining a hit.  For a description of other advantages of wire-guided torpedoes, see Owen R. Coté Jr., The Future of the Trident Force:  Enabling Access in Access-Constrained Environment, May 2002, p. 19, http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/confseries/Trident_ForceWEB.PDF.  Wake-homing torpedoes greatly simplify the problem of sinking surface ships by submarines.  These are "fire-and-forget" torpedoes that detect and follow a ship's wake until they reach the ship itself.  Unlike most World War II-era torpedoes, and like wire guided torpedoes, wake-homing torpedoes can follow and pursue evading targets.  Increasing their lethality, they attack ships from the rear, where the target ship's propulsion machinery masks the torpedo's sound.  Additionally, they are immune to towed acoustic decoys.  See Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions," p. 66.

[25] Charles Hutzler, "Deficiencies of Chinese Weapons Makers Underlined By Arms Accord with Russia,"  Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2002, p. A11.  Chinese sources report that the sale is to be completed by 2007.  See "Zhongguo Haijun Jiang Goumai Ba Sou Jiluo Ji Qianting" [China's navy will purchase 8 Kilo-type submarines], Bingqi Zhishi [Ordnance Knowledge], (September 2002), p. 5; and "Zhongguo Zai Goumai Jiluo Qianting" [China again buys Kilo submarines] Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 275 (August 2002), p. 2.  The latter Chinese article noted that the submarine being built at Krasnoye Sormovo was already two thirds completed.  Various Russian sources have said, however, that the submarines are to be completed by 2005.  See, "Russian Shipyard Begins Building Submarines for Chinese Navy," Agenstvo Voyennykh Novostey [Military News Agency], January 15, 2003, FBIS Document No. CEP20030115000216.

[26] Regarding slower turning screws:  It is essential to understand that the faster a ship's propeller rotates, the  more likely it is to cavitate or produce other types of detectable noises.  Since a submarine's stealth is inversely proportional to the amount of sound it generates, the ability to achieve the same submarine speeds with a slower turning screw produces a significant tactical advantage.  On battery problems in Kilos, see, for example, See Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions," p. 63.

[27] "Club Anti ship Missile and Chinese Navy," http://www.kanwa.com/free/2003/06/e0609a.htm.  According to this source, China will obtain fifty of these missiles as part of the deal in which it is acquiring the eight project 636 Kilo submarines from Russia.

[28] Zi Xuan, "Qiaoji Konghua Wuqi" [Super cavitation weapons], Bingqi Zhishi, (January 2002), p. 51.

[29] See "Navy Systems" in Richard D. Fisher, "The Impact of Foreign Weapons and Technology on the Modernization of China's People's Liberation Army," p. 18, forthcoming. 

[30] See, for example Yu Yongtao and Qian Jin, "Fuwu:  Yulei Duikang Xitong" [The Fuwu anti-torpedo system], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 277 (October 2002), pp. 37-38.  This is an appraisal of a European system.

[31] It is possible, but unlikely that the eight new Kilo submarines will be delivered with AIP.  The Russian Rubin submarine design bureau advertises AIP as an option on Russia's newest Amur-class diesel submarines.  The premier of this class is now being built in St. Petersburg, http://www.ckb-rubin.com/.  No country is publicly known to have purchased the AIP option from Russia.   It is conceivable, however, that the technology for the Amur AIP system could be back-fitted into China's Kilo fleet.  Chinese sources mention this possibility, but are noncommittal.  See "Songji Zhihou de Zhongguo Qianting Jihua" [After the Song:  Future Chinese submarine development], Jianchuan Zhishi No. 241 (October 1999), p. 2.

[32] For a description of air-independent propulsion systems, as well as their history, strengths and limitations, see Edward C. Whitman, "Air-Independent Propulsion", Undersea Warfare Vol. 4, No. 1 (Fall 2001), http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm.

[33]Joris Janssen Lok, "French Submarine Export Efforts are Gathering Speed," Jane's International Defense Review, Vol. 25, April 1, 2002, pp. 52-53. Given China's close military ties with Pakistan, it is likely that Chinese engineers will get a thorough look at this new Pakistani acquisition from France.  On Sino-Pakistani maritime cooperation, see, for example, "Navy Chief, Chinese Envoy Talk Defense Ties," Statesman, February 7, 2003, FBIS Document No. SAP20030207000038.

[34] See, for example, a series of articles in the January 1997 (No. 208) and August 1997 (No. 215)  issues of Jianchuan Zhishi.

[35] Robert Sae-Liu, "China 'Stretches' Latest Ming Submarine," Jane's Defense Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 1 January 3, 2001, p. 15.  Since most European submarine manufacturers AIP hull sections are five to six meters long, Sae-Liu's conclusion is probably mistaken.  On the other hand, there is some speculation that an AIP test-bed malfunction caused the accident aboard Ming 361 in April 2003.  See, for example, "Mystery Surrounding No. 361 Submarine Accident Remains Unsolved, Outdated Equipment Become Potential Danger for National Defense," Nanfang Ribao [Southern Daily] May 6, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030506000139.

[36] Fisher, "The Impact of Foreign Weapons and Technology," p. 7, forthcoming.  According to Fisher, the Dalian Institute has produced a Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cell that exceeds the PEM performance that Germany has developed for the Type 212 submarines.

[37] 2002 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, p. 21.

[38] Nikolai Novichkov, "China's Russian Kilo Buy", p. 3.  This is also implied in Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions," p. 59.

[39] Yihong Zhang, "China's Rising Forces," Jane's International Defense Review, Vol. 35, No. 8 (August 2002), p. 39.

[40] Submarine sails house retractable antennas, periscopes, and air induction masts.  When retracted, these devices can extend from the top of the sail down to the bottom of the hull of the submarine.  A full redesign of these internal elements would have been extremely time-consuming and costly, especially when compared to the relatively simple task of filling in the notch.

[41] Robert Sae-Liu, "Second Song Submarine Vital to China's Huge Defense Program," Jane's Defense Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 7 August 18, 1999, p. 17.

[42] See, for example, "Type 039 (Song Class) Diesel-Electric Submarine," at China Defense Today, http://www.sinoDefense.com/navy/sub/039.htm, and Anthony Watts, "Janes Underwater Warfare Systems, Submarine Forces, China", June 16, 2003, www.janes.com.

[43] Comment made at Harvard/MIT Conference “The Strategic Outlook in the Taiwan Strait,” Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., April 21, 2002.

[44] Jurrien Noot, "Introduction," Jane's Naval Construction and Retrofit Markets, Vol. 18, August 11, 2003,  www.janes.com.

[45] John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China's Strategic Seapower: The Politics of Force Modernization in the Nuclear Age (Stanford, Calif.:  Stanford University Press, 1992), p. 109.

[46] Ibid. p. 59.

[47] Zhang, "China's Rising Forces, p. 37.  One source claims that the Xia was modified during this refit to accept China's newest submarine launched ballistic missile, the JL-2. See David Miller, Illustrated Directory of Submarines of the World, (St. Paul, Minn. MBI Publishing, 2002), p. 407.  If true, this would be of enormous significance since it would allow the Xia to strike the continental United States from the East Asian littoral.

[48] Liu Gen, "Ruguo Dalu Bude Buyong Wuli Jiefang Taiwan--Meiguo Hui Shizhuang Ganshe Ma?" [If the mainland has no choice but to use force to liberate Taiwan, will the United States forcefully intervene?], Junshi Zhanwang [Military Prospect], (September 2002), pp. 41-42.  The last three hulls of the Han series seem to have been lengthened by 8 meters each to accommodate a special antiship missile system.  Ching Tung, "Beijing's Submarine Forces and Taiwan's Antisubmarine Capabilities," Kuang Chiao Ching [Wide Angle] August 16, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020816000067.  The 1996 Taiwan Straits Crisis witnessed China's test firing of several missiles into the vicinity of Taiwan, large and menacing PLA maneuvers in the Strait and also the dispatch by President Bill Clinton of two United States carrier battle groups to the region for deterrent purposes.  The main catalysts for that crisis were a visit by Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui to the United States together with the Taiwan presidential elections of March 1996.

[49]  Office of Naval Intelligence Liu Gen, "Ruguo Dalu Bude Buyong Wuli Jiefang, pp. 41-42.

[50] United States Office of Naval Intelligence, Worldwide Submarine Challenges, 1997, United States Government Printing Office, February, 1997, p. 21.  This assessment of Victor III equivalence is repeated in many other sources.  There is currently is insufficient unclassified data to validate or contest this ONI projection.

[51] Jian Jie, "Shenhou Zhong de Xuangzi Zuo" [Myth of the twins], Guoji Zhanwang [World Outlook], Vol. 450, (August 2002), p. 22.

[52] Hou Xiaomeng, "Juesheng Shenhai:  Shijie He Qianting Fazhan Shianzhuang Ji Qianjing" [Decisive conquest of the deep sea:  World nuclear submarine development at present and in the future], Guoji Zhanwang Vol. 449, (August 2002), p. 61.

[53] Former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral James D. Watkins testified in the mid-1980s:  "We had misjudged the absolute sound and pressure levels of the Soviet Victor III.  We had made an estimating error, and found that they were quieter than we had thought…we learned that they are very hard to find." Quoted in Owen R. Coté Jr. The Third Battle: Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines, (Newport, R.I.: Naval War College Press, 2003), p. 66.  It is widely believed that many Russian designers and technicians have been involved in building the type 093.  Indeed, assistance from the Rubin submarine design bureau may date as far back as 1995.  It is also perhaps worth noting that the Russian Victor III submarine was built in the Russian Far East at Komsomolsk.  Thus, Russian expertise on SSN construction has most certainly been proximate and convenient to access by the PLAN.  Fisher, "The Impact of Foreign Weapons and Technology," p. 1.  On the other hand, U.S. Navy intelligence forecasts also overestimated Soviet submarine capabilities during the early Cold War.  See Coté, The Third Battle,  p. 18.

[54] Jian Jie, "Shenhou Zhong de Xuangzi Zuo," p. 23.

[55] 2003 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, Report to Congress Pursuant to the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, July 28, 2003, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf, p. 27.  This report predicts the 093 will become operational in 2004 or 2005.  The 093 was probably launched on December 22, 2002.  See Jurrien Noot, " Introduction," Jane's Naval Construction and Retrofit Markets.

[56] See "Zhongwai He Qianting Bijiao" [A comparison of Chinese and foreign nuclear submarines], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 228 (September 1998), p. 30.

[57] Jurrien Noot, " Introduction," Jane's Naval Construction and Retrofit Markets.

[58] See, for example, the articles in the December 1998 (No. 231), August 1999 (No. 239), June (No. 249) and August 2000 (No. 251) issues of Jianchuan Zhishi.

[59] See "Chinese Navy Releases New Photos of Its Strategic Submarines," Sekai no Kansen [Ships of the World] November 1, 2002, FBIS Document No. JPP20021107000162.

[60] The D-5, currently deployed aboard the United States Ohio-class SSBNs, is 13.4 m in length, 1.85 m in diameter, and weighs 58,500 kg.  The U.S. weapon has a published range of at least 7,360 km.  Federation of American Scientists, Trident II D-5 Fleet Ballistic Missile, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm.  The significantly higher weight of the D-5, and comparable range, as compared to the JL-2, does suggest that the longer range estimates of 12,000 and even 14,000 km for the JL-2, are exaggerations.  For these longer range estimates see, for example, Tian Ping "'Julang-2' Will Be Deployed" Hsiang Kang Shang Pao, [Hong Kong Morning Paper], Jun 23, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030623000083.

[61] This entire paragraph draws from Duncan Lennox, JL-2 (CSS-NX-5), Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems, Vol. 40, June 3, 2003, www.janes.com.

[62] Han Tang, "Ige Wangmi de Zhongguo Haijun Meng" [A total vision for china's fleet], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 232 (January 1999), p. 13. A recent Russian estimate suggests that the PLAN intends to acquire ten to twelve SSBNs.  The same estimate envisions a force of twelve SSNs by the end of the decade and 100 conventional submarines.  Dmitriy Permyakov, "Dual Objective of China's Defense Industry," January 31, 2003, Krasnaya Zvezda [Red Star] FBIS Document No. 20030131000351.

[63] Cole, The Great Wall at Sea, p. 115.

[64] Ibid, p. 117.  For a much more skeptical view of the PLAN submarine force’s human resources, see Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions," p. 60.

[65] Su Yingcheng, Chen Wanjun, Yu Zifu, and Liu Ronghua, "The Ocean Applauds You--Getting Close to the High Quality Group of Soldiers and Officers of a Certain Submarine Unit of the Navy" Xinhua News Agency, April 7, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020407000031.

[66] Zhang Zhennan, "'Longguan Li Zou de Jiangjun" [The tiger admiral], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 227 (August 1998), p. 5.

[67] Fan Ping, Liu Ping, and Wang Youngsheng, "Blue Whales Dive Deep to Train Skills of Fighting, Winning--True Account of In-Depth Teaching Reform Under Way at the PLA Naval Submarine Academy," Jiefangjun Bao, October 21, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20021021000066.

[68] See, for example, Yu Keliang, "Huwei Jian Hukang Fanqianting Zhan Ili" [Escorting convoys against submarine warfare:  An example], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 47 (August 1983), p. 13.

[69] See, for example, Zhou Ming, "Qixi Sicapa Wan," [The daring raid on Scapa Gulf], Guoji Zhanwan Vol. 456,  (December 2002), pp. 74-81; and A Yu, "Weiri Diansha" [The electric shark that almost was], Bingqi [Weaponry], (April 2002), pp. 36-40.

[70] See the series of articles on German sea power by Song Yichang in the April (No. 223), May (No. 224) and June (No. 225) 1998 volumes of Jianchuan Zhishi.

[71] See, for example, Hu Qidao, "Huangsha Chuji" [The yellow shark goes on the attack], Bingqi (March 2002), pp. 28-30; Tian Shichen, "Jingang de Fumie" [The destruction of the Jingang], Guoji Zhanwang Vol. 439,  (October 2002), pp. 71-73; and Tian Shichen, "Anye Liesha" [Night of the hunting shark], Guoji Zhanwang Vol. 457, (December 2002), pp. 74-77

[72] See the articles on Soviet naval power by Song Yichang in the 1999 volume of Jianchuan Zhishi.  For discussion of the Falklands campaign, see Chen Juan, "Weishenme Shueisheng Duikang" [Why sonar countermeasures], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 255 (December 2000), p. 30.

[73] This is obvious in, for example, "Zhongguo Xuyao Hangkong Mujian?" p. 9.

[74] See, for example, Yuan Wenxian, "Strengthening Command Training in Joint Operations," Jiefangjun Bao, April 9, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020409000117.  An example of a recent joint exercise is Yao Yan, "Certain Destroyer Detachment Explores New Road for Joint Sea, Air Training with Certain Airman Unit," Jiefangjun Bao, January 13, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030107000053.

[75] "Cutting Through the Waves as Well as Riding the Whale into the Sea," Keji Ribao [Science and Technology Daily], February 2, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020201000184.

[76] Zhang Kunping, "China's 'Fort Irwin': The Fires of War Burn from Spring Until Winter," Junshi Wenzhai, July 7, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020719000182.  See also, for example, Zhang Linlin, "Never Set Up a Weak Opponent in Combat Drills," Jiefangjun Bao, September 6, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020906000027..

[77] Zhang Luocan and Sun Shiwei, "Submarines of a Submarine Detachment Brave the Winds and Storms--Sinking Into the Sea for Confrontational Exercise," Jiefangjun Bao, January 21, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020122000030.

CPP20020122000030; and Liu Xinmin, "East Sea Fleet Submarine Detachment Takes New Tactics to the Training Area," Jiefangjun Bao, January 3, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030103000018.

[78] Zhang Zhihui and Wang Jinyuan, "Air Force Division Successfully Organizes Exercise with Large Formations Making Tactical Inter-Airfield Transfer," Jiefangjun Bao, November 21, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20021121000026; and Wu Ming-chieh, "Other Side Will Launch Exercise of Three Armed Services in South China Sea after 16^th CPC National Congress," Tzu-Yu Shih-Pao [Liberty Times], November 15, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20021115000106.

[79] Liu Xinmin and Xu Feng, "Chinese Submarine Unit Succeeds for First Time in Making Use of Civilian Port to Load Torpedos," Zhongguo Qingnian Bao [China Youth Daily] January 6, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020603000058.

[80] Wang Guangxin, Yu Zifu, and Wang Yong, "Vessels' Protector and Savior--A Report on Exercises of Emergency and Rescue Operations of the Emergency and Rescue Contingent of the East China Sea Fleet," Jiefangjun Bao, January 23, 2002, FBIS Document No. 20020123000063.  Another especially challenging recent exercise was an undersea rescue drill conducted "under severe winter conditions."  See Yang Yue and Qiao Fei, "A Certain Rescue Regiment under the North Sea Fleet Conducts Winter Training in Sea Rescue," Jiefangjun Bao, February 7, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030207000046.  Since the Russian Kursk tragedy, PLAN submarine rescue drills appear to have increased in intensity and frequency.  See also Lu Wenxing and Cai Yifeng, "Chinese Submarine Successfully Conducts Lifesaving Escape in the Sea: An Interview with Chinese Navy Submarine Captain Sun Weidong," Haixia Zhizheng Wang [Cross-Strait Outlook], November 22, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20021125000173.

[81] Yin Rutao and Jiang Jianke, "Operations Automation, Networked Training, Equipping Our Military's Logistics Command Training with High Technology," Renmin Ribao, January 31, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020131000068.

[82] Chen Heying, Yuan Huazhi, and Xu Feng, "Wholehearted Attention to the Blood of Battlefields--A Research Report from the Navy's Applied Oil Research Institute," Jiefangjun Bao, January 22, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030122000090.

[83] Liu Fazhong, Chen Duan, and Wang Shanhe, "Confrontation Drills Close to Actual Combat Situations--A Factual Record of Air Force's Logistical Units Strengthening War Support," Renmin Ribao, July 23, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020723000084.

[84] See "North China Sea Fleet Conducts Emergency Logistical Support Exercises," Jiefangjun Bao, November 6, 2001, FBIS Document No. CPP20011106000077.

[85] Wang Guangxin, "Certain Service Vessel Group Strives to Raise Contingency Support Capabilities at Sea," Jiefangjun Bao, August 27, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020827000067.

[86] Jia Junfeng, Zhang Jinming, and Xu Feng, "The Wonderful Survey Troops--A Report From the Survey Party of Engineering Design Bureau of Navy" Jiefangjun Bao, July 17, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020717000062.

[87] Glenn Schloss, "PLA Submarine Fleet Making Quiet Advances," Sunday Morning Post, August 4, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020805000034.

[88] Lewis and Xue, China's Strategic Seapower, p. 123.

[89] Cole, The Great Wall at Sea, pp. 123-24.

[90] Zhang Shimin, "Harbin Engineering University for Ships, Sea and Defense," Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 274 (July 2002), FBIS Document No. CPP20020723000222.

[91] Han Fanzhou, Chen Xianjie, and Xu Feng, "Record of Surveying of China's Marine Territory by Marine Surveying and Mapping Forces," Jiefangjun Bao, December 11, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20021211000077.

[92] Ibid.  The force of gravity is not uniform.  It varies due to local topographic features such as undersea mountains and trenches.  Although these variations in gravitational fields are small, they have a significant effect on the accuracy of gyroscopically-aided navigation systems, such as those used by submarines and long range missiles.

[93] Guo Yan and Wang Jiangan, "PRC S&T: Detecting Thermal Track of Submarines by Infrared Image," Haijun Gongcheng Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Naval University of Engineering] June 1, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020812000168;. and He Zuoyang and Wang Wenzhi, "PRC S&T: Design of Acoustic Holography Measuring Array," Harbin Gongcheng Daxue Xuebao [Journal of Harbin Engineering University] April 1, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020627000203; Sun Guiqing, Yang Desen, Zhang Lanyue, and Shi Shenguo, "Maximum Likelihood Ratio Detection and Maximum Likelihood DOA Estimation Based on the Vector Hydrophone," Shengxue Xuebao [Journal of Acoustics] January 1, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030123000416.

[94] See Stratfor, "Spy Incident Highlights Taiwan's Submarine Concerns," Stratfor.com, April 16, 2002.

[95] Oleg Zhunusov, "Eavesdropping in the Ocean Deemed Illegal," Izvestiya, July 4, 2002, FBIS Document No. CEP20020705000214.

[96] Scott L. Wheeler, "PRC Espionage Leads to 'Terf' War," Insight Magazine, October 29, 2002, p. 26.

[97] Comments of Ambassador Chas Freeman, Asia-Pacific Forum, September 31, 2001, U.S. Naval War College.

[98] See O'Hanlon, "Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," pp. 54-73.

[99] Of course, Beijing would very possibly integrate missiles and other aerial operations into a naval blockade.  Thus, it has been suggested that "China's warplanes and missiles…can effectively break up Taiwan's antisubmarine troops."  See Ching Tung, "Beijing's Submarine Forces and Taiwan's Antisubmarine Capabilities," Kuang Chiao Ching, August 16, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP2002082000067.   See also Christensen’s discussion of a “missile blockade” in his “Posing Problems without Catching Up” p. 29.

[100] Gao Hongyan, "A Chat on Naval Blockade Warfare," Xiandai Junshi [Modern Military], January 5, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030127000191.

[101] Ching Tung, "Beijing's Submarine Forces and Taiwan's Antisubmarine Capabilities," Kuang Chiao Ching, August 16, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020816000067.

[102] Christensen, "Posing Problems without Catching Up, p. 29.

[103] Brian Hsu, "Taiwan Hopes to Extend Life of Submarine Aircraft," Taipei Times, August 12, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020812000122.

[104]  The authors wish to thank Rear Adm. (ret.) Michael McDevitt for this insight and many that follow. 

[105]  Coté, The Third Battle, p.12. 

[106] For an alternative view, see Capt. Bo Rask, , Royal Swedish Navy, "Submarine Operations in Taiwan Waters," The Submarine Review, January 2003, pp. 47-49.  Rask views Taiwan submarine mining operations as a potentially major obstacle to PRC offensive operations.  But given that the PRC is free to choose the timing of the campaign, we have little confidence that these mines could halt the successful egress of Chinese submarines.  Moreover, Taiwan's submarine fleet is likely to suffer attrition in the initial Chinese attack.

[107]"Zhongguo Haijun Jiang Goumai Ba Sou Jiluo Ji Qianting" p. 5

[108] Nikolai Novichkov, "p. 3.  The three shipyards are in St. Petersburg, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and Nizhny Novgorod.

[109] On "explor[ing] a new way of training on one new submarine and storing up multiple groups of personnel for the new armament," see "PLA Submarine Detachment Implements Advanced Training for New Armament Personnel," Jiefangjun Bao, June 23, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020624000065.  A recent report also describes how two separate crews use one submarine to train.  This raises the troubling possibility that China's submarine force could quickly undertake a major expansion at some point in the future.  See Liu Xinmin and He Desheng,  "Submarine Detachment Conducts 'Vessel Exchange System' Training--Going to Sea 'on Other's Vessel' to Train Reserve Personnel," Jiefangjun Bao,  November 29, 2000, FBIS Document No. CPP20001129000037.

[110] David Eisenberg, "Taiwans's Ssubmarine saga Continues," Asia times, November 21, 2003, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/ChinaEK21Ad03.html, cited in Fisher, "The Impact of Foreign Weapons and Technology, " p. 6.

[111] Brian Hsu, "Taiwan Defense Spending Hits Eight-Year Low," Taipei Times, September 4, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020904000138.

[112] Quoted in Chieh Yang, "Taiwan Needs Key Weapons," Taiwan News, October 17, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20021023000197.  Ku asserts, "The sale of submarines to Taiwan by the United States is fundamentally a political issue."  He goes on to suggest that only "key weapons" (i.e. nuclear weapons) can maintain Taiwan's security and avoid "the quagmire of [an] arms race." Ibid.

[113] O'Hanlon, "Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," pp. 78-79.

[114] Anonymous quoted in "Zhongguo Xuyao Hangkong Mujian?, p. 9.

[115]  See Coté, The Third Battle, p. 70.

[116] The U.S. Navy intends to purchase 108 Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), but this platform is not supposed to reach initial operating capability until 2013.  There are also plans to purchase fifty Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles to augment the MMAs.  See Mark Selinger, "Navy Plans Early Retirement For A Third Of P-3 Fleet," Aerospace Daily, November 19, 2003.  These timelines suggest the possibility of a rather wide window of vulnerability with respect to U.S. airborne ASW capability.  Moreover, using these aircraft to find and destroy submarines requires an uncontested aerial maritime environment.  Robert Rubel, a professor at the Naval War College, observes that some aircraft in China's inventory, including especially the Su-27, would be highly effective against U.S. maritime surveillance aircraft because of the Su-27's speed and impressive range.

[117] Fred Engle, "Sharing the Seas with Marine Mammals," Currents: The Navy's Environmental Magazine (Winter 2003), p. 19.

[118] Only one of the original eighteen Stalwart-class ships still conducts ASW missions.  See "Counter-Drug Operations/Ocean Surveillance Ships - T-AGOS," http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-tagos3.html.  All four of the Victorious class T-AGOS ships still perform ASW.  See "Victorious Class Ocean Surveillance Ships," http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/.  The Navy also uses the Cory Chouest Ocean Surveillance ship as a test platform for the Low Frequency Active Towed Sonar array, bringing the number of active T-AGOS ships to six.  See Cory Chouest Ocean Surveillance ship, http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/. 

[119] Hunter Keeter, "Mullen: Navy to Back Further Program Cuts, More Business Efficiencies," Defense Daily, January 17, 2003, p. 1.

[120]  Rear Adm. A.T. Church, FY 2004 President's Budget Overview, January 31, 2003, slide presentation http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/highbook/31Jan_Budget_Rollout_brief.pdf.

[121] "U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917-" http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm.

[122] In 2003, according to the former United States Submarine Force commander Vice Adm. Grossenbacher, “The problem we have today is just numbers,…We don't have enough....In my opinion, we're about as thin as we can be...” Robert A. Hamilton, "Lack Of Subs Could Slow Pace Of Technology, Admiral Warns", New London Day, September 30, 2003, p. A3.  This same article observes, "The Navy is [currently] building one submarine a year, which will eventually result in a force of 30 boats."  A looming budget shortfall later this decade endangers long-range plans to boost this low building rate.

[123] Frank C. Borik, "Sub Tzu and the Art of Submarine Warfare," in Mary A. Sommerville ed., Essays on Strategy XIII (Washington, D.C.:  National Defense University Press, 1996), p. 16.

[124] One informed observer states that a "Modern nuclear submarine, as presently configured, can [only] operate safely on a routine basis in waters that exceed 120-140 feet in depth."  Richard. M. Rosenblatt, "Submarine Air Independent Propulsion and the U.S. Navy", Submarine Review, (July 1997), p. 122.

[125] O’Hanlon, “Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan” p. 78.

[126] Coté writes: "In World War II, the peak number of U-boats operational was 240 in March 1943, and this force faced in the Royal Navy alone approximately 875 ASDIC-equipped escorts, 41 escort carriers, and 300 Coastal Command patrol aircraft."  Coté, The Third Battle, p.12.  Modern technology may reduce this ratio, but the needle-in-the-haystack nature of the ASW problem will likely always demand large numbers of platforms.

[127] Adm. Harry D. Train, commander in chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command and also NATO Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic during the Falklands War, writes that Argentina's two German Type 209 diesel submarines "created enormous concern for the British.  It dictated, at least as much as did the air threat, the conduct of British naval operations and caused the expenditure of a vast supply of antisubmarine warfare weapons.  Virtually every antisubmarine weapon in the task force was expended on false submarine contacts."  Train, "An Analysis of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands Campaign," Naval War College Review, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Winter 1988), p. 40. 

[128] O'Hanlon, " Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," p. 82, n. 115.

[129] This estimate is based on the professional experience at sea of one of the authors.

[130] O'Hanlon, " Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," p. 82, n. 115.

[131] Ibid, p. 79, n. 104.

[132] Tom Stefanick, Strategic Antisubmarine Warfare and Naval Strategy (Lexington, Mass.:  Lexington Books, 1987), p. 36.  Stefanick himself calls this assumption "highly unrealistic."

[133] O'Hanlon, "Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," p. 78.

[134] For PLA discussions of asymmetric warfare, see Christensen, “Posing Problems without Catching Up,” p. 9.

[135] See, for example, Wang Jiasuo, "Aircraft Carriers:  Suggest You Keep Out of the Taiwan Strait," Junshi Wenzhai, April 1, 2001, FBIS Document No. CPP20020326000218; and Dong Ping, "Qianting de Yinbi he Yinbi de Gongji" [Submarine concealment and concealed attack], Bingqi Zhishi (May 2002), p. 52.

[136]See the 2002 Annual Report on the Military Power of the Peoples Republic of China, p. 13-14.  The United States would also face strong incentives to preempt before China’s submarine fleet had effectively dispersed.  On this point, see Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions,” p. 69.

[137] Yi Wen, "Wo Bangjiale Yi Sou Hangkong Mujian" [I kidnapped an aircraft carrier], Guoji Zhanwang Vol. 440, (April 2002), p. 78.

[138] Lu and Cai, "Chinese Submarine Successfully Conducts Lifesaving Escape in the Sea".

[139] Su Sen, "Batu Haixia:  Chouliang de Qianting Youji Qu" [The Bashi Channel: A favorable environment for submarine attack operations], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 241 (October 1999), p. 13.

[140] See, for example, Christensen, “Posing Problems without Catching Up,” p. 11.

[141] Ching Tung, "Beijing's Submarine Forces and Taiwan's Antisubmarine Capabilities," Kuang Chiao Ching, August 16, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020816000067.

[142] Wang Xinsen, "A Close Look as a Submarine Puts to Sea," Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 272 (May 1), 2002, FBIS Document No. 200205300000157.

[143] Zhang, "'Longguan' Li Zou de Jiangjun," p. 5.

[144] Wang, "Aircraft Carriers."

[145] Ying Nan, "Gongshi Bulei de Bingli Yunyong he Tedien" [Tendencies in offensive mine warfare delivery systems], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 240 (September 1999), p. 10.

[146] See, for example, Li Kefeng, "Eluosi Shin Huoquian Shang Fu Shuilei" [Russia's new rocket-propelled rising mines], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 277 (October 2002), pp. 34-35; and Zhou Yi, "Aircraft Carriers Face Five Major Assassins," Junshi Wenzhai, March 1, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020315000200.

[147] On UUVs, see, for example, the series of articles in September 2001 issue (No. 264) of Jianchuan Zhishi.  On mini-subs and special operations, see, for example, a series of articles in the April 2001(No. 259) issue of Jianchuan Zhishi.

[148] Cole, The Great Wall at Sea, p. 139.

[149] Lin Zailian and Lu Yongzheng, "Certain Submarine Detachment under North Sea Fleet Conducts Drills and Develops 12 New Combat Methods," Jiefangjun Bao, March 22, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020325000052;  Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions,” p. 60.; and 2003 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, Report to Congress, p. 22.

[150] See, for example, Jiang Guangxin, Liu Ronghua and Yu Zifu, "Yong Shin Ban Xiang Dayang:  Ji Mou Qianting Tingzhang Wang Zaizhu" [A courageous new crew sets sail:  Recollections of a certain submarine captain Wang Zaizhu], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 269 (February 2002), p. 8.

[151] Dong Ping, "Qianting de Yinbi he Yinbi de Gongji," p. 51.

[152] Ibid. By incorporating towed arrays on its submarines, the PLAN would be indicating a clear intent to operate in deeper water.  Towed arrays are generally heavier than the water they displace, and would drag along the bottom in shallow water, making them useless.

[153] See the 2002 Annual Report on the Military Power of the Peoples Republic of China, p. 23.

[154] Most recently, Nathan Hodge "Australian 'Hit' On U.S. Sub Gets Attention", Defense Week Daily Update, October 1, 2003. Also see Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions,” p. 67.

[155] China may have developed passive acoustic sensors, possibly for coastal surveillance.  See the 2003 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, Report to Congress, p. 33.

[156] Wang, "Aircraft Carriers."

[157] Borik, "Sub Tzu and the Art of Submarine Warfare," p. 11.

[158] Huang Tung, "The Inside Story on How a Chinese Fishing Boat Outwitted U.S. Spy Ship," Yazhou Zhoukan [Asia Weekly], October 7, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20021008000063.

[159] Wang, "Aircraft Carriers."Ibid.

[160] Maj. Gen. Huang Bin, quoted in Richard D. Fisher, "To Take Taiwan, First Kill a Carrier," Jamestown Foundation China Newsletter Vol. 2, Issue 4 (July 2002), http://russia.jamestown.org/pubs/view/cwe_002_014_004.htm.  On the widespread conviction among Chinese strategists that American society is casualty averse, see Christensen, “Posing Problems without Catching Up,” pp. 17-20.

[161] Xin Benjian, "United States Concerned Over China's Anticarrier Strategy for Fear of Exposing Its Own Weakness and Plays Up 'Threat' of Other countries," Huanqiu Shibao [Global Times], February 7, 2003, FBIS Document No. CPP20030212000035.  According to this article, "Once the carriers are threatened, the Americans will run away."

[162] Philip S. Clark, "China Launches New photo-Reconnaissance Satellite," Jane's Defense Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 19 November 6, 2002, p. 14.

[163] Xin, "United States Concerned Over China's Anticarrier Strategy."

[164] Zhou, "Aircraft Carriers Face Five Major Assassins,"

[165] Wang Gong and Tong Shaosi, "Qianting Zhiming Shang:  Tongxin Maoduen Luohou Dui Qianting de Shengcun Weixian"[A submarine's fatal flaw:  The danger of communications backwardness for submarine survivability], Junshi Zhanwang (March 2002), pp. 57-59.

[166] Xin, "United States Concerned Over China's Anticarrier Strategy."

[167] Schloss, "PLA Submarine Fleet Making Quiet Advances,"  Some PLAN authors may respect Japanese ASW capabilities more than those of the United States.  See Wang Xiaoxuan, "Riben Hangkong Fanting Liliang de Zuozhan Tedian"  [Trends in Japan's aerial anti-submarine warfare capabilities], Jianchuan Zhishi, No. 208 (January 1997), p. 32.

[168] Vice Adm. John Grossenbacker, "Remarks at 2002 NDIA Clambake," Submarine Review, (January 2002), p. 12.

[169] Dong Hua, "An Aircraft Carrier's Natural Enemy:  The Anti-Ship Missile," Junshi Wenzhai, July 1, 2002, FBIS Document No. CPP20020710000185.

[170] Ibid.

[171] See, for example, the many Oscar-related articles in the December 2002 issue (No. 279) of Jianchuan Zhishi. The Oscar, a true behemoth, carries 24 300-mile-range mach 2.5, 750 kg warhead SS-N-19 cruise missiles, and can launch 65 cm wake-homing torpedoes.  A recent Russian article states "The PRC also has an interest in the procurement of an Oscar class submarines" Oleg Odnokolenko, "Watch Out, Market Closing…," Itogi, February 4, 2003, FBIS Document No. CEP20030204000434.  Rumors also persist regarding a possible sale of an Akula-class SSN to China.  See, for example, Isenberg, "China Buys Russian Vessels to Mount Naval Challenge to U.S.", p. 3.

[172] Coté, The Future of the Trident Force. p. 11.

[173] Wang, "Aircraft Carriers."

[174] Schloss, "PLA Submarine Fleet Making Quiet Advances,"

[175] Zhou, "Aircraft Carriers Face Five Major Assassins,"

[176] See "Zhongguo Xuyao Hangkong Mujian?"  For a United States government report detailing such incidents, see Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions,” p. 65, n. 234.

[177] Xin, "United States Concerned Over China's Anticarrier Strategy."

[178] Ibid.

[179] David League, "We All Live For Another Submarine," Far Eastern Economic Review, 15 August 2002.

[180] David League, "We All Live for Another Submarine," Far Eastern Economic Review, August 15, 2002.

[181] O'Hanlon, "Can China Conquer Taiwan?" p. 79; and Ross, "Navigating the Taiwan Strait," p. 80.

[182] T'ang Sheng, "Mainland Strengthens Prowess of Submarines to Deter Taiwan Independence," Ching Pao [The Mirror], September 1, 2001, FBIS Document No. CPP20020905000021.

[183] For a useful discussion of possible weak points in China’s submarine force, see Kan, Bolckom, and O’Rourke, “China’s Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions,” p. 70.

[184] In his famous "eight points" speech on January 30, 1995, former PRC President Jiang Zemin stated, "[Taiwan] may…retain its armed forces and administer its party, governmental, and military systems by itself.  The central government will not station troops or send administrative personnel there.  What is more, a number of posts in the central government will be made available to Taiwan."  It is additionally worth noting that this is the opening PRC position for negotiations -- suggesting that the final terms of a settlement might be even more lenient.  For the complete text of Jiang's speech, see "Continue to Promote the Reunification of Taiwan," in Orville Shell and David Shambaugh (eds), The China Reader:  The Reform Era (New York:  Vintage, 1999), pp. 498-501.

[185] George W. Baer, One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U.S. Navy, 1890-1990, (Stanford, Calif.:  Stanford University Press, 1993), pp. 398-402.