Photo Pixabay (see Footnotes for attribution)
IN THIS REPORT:
- A POTENTIAL DISASTER FOR THE UNITED STATES & ITS ALLIES
- CHINA’S MERCHANT MARINE & MARITIME MILITIA SUPPORT THE NAVY
- HOW CHINA’S MERCHANT MARINE IMPROVES CAPABILITY TO INVADE TAIWAN
- THE MARITIME MILITIA
- EVOLUTION OF CHINA’S COMMERCIAL SHIPPING TO SUPPORT TAIWAN INVASION
- FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SHIPBUILDING ORDERS IMPROVE CHINA’S COMMERCIAL AND NAVAL SHIPBUILDING
- CHINA STATE SHPBUILDING CORPORATION
- THE JIANGNAN SHIPYARD BUILDS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND EVERGREEN MARINE CONTAINER SHIP
- OTHER FOREIGN CARRIERS ALSO ENHANCE CHINESE SHIPBUILDING
- THE CASE OF CARNIVAL CRUSE LINES
- TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS WITH RUSSIA
- CONCLUSION: IS CHINA’S MERCHANT MARINE A ROLE MODEL FOR U.S. MERCHANT MARINE?
BY STAS MARGARONIS & KEVIN POLICARPO
A U.S. Naval War College report concludes that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), does not currently have the amphibious capacity to make an invasion of Taiwan possible, but will soon have that capability.
At the same time, shipbuilding orders by foreign carriers and technology transfers are aiding the competitiveness of Chinese commercial shipbuilding as well as the efficiency of naval warship construction, according to a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report.
A POTENTIAL DISASTER FOR THE UNITED STATES & ITS ALLIES
The successful invasion of Taiwan by China would be a disaster for the United States:
- The United States would be effectively forced out of East Asia allowing China to militarily dominate the region including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.
- Hawaii would become vulnerable to attack and might be neutralized as a U.S. military base of operations.
- There is a national security concern that if China invaded Taiwan, the supply of semiconductor components for electronics applications for manufacturers all over the world, including the United States, would be negatively impacted. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has overtaken U.S.-based Intel as the global semiconductor leader. It is estimated that TSMC alone accounts for 20% of the world’s semiconductor production and up to 90% of the supply of the most advanced chips. TSMC insists that China will not risk a global manufacturing meltdown, because of Taiwan’s so-called “silicon shield.” TSMC chairman Mark Liu told CBS News’ “60 Minutes”this shield means “the world all needs Taiwan’s high-tech industry support. So, they will not let the war happen in this region because it goes against interest of every country in the world.” Dan Hutcheson, president of VLSI Research, a long-time analyst of the global semiconductor industry, says the United States must rebuild its semiconductor manufacturing capability by partly focusing on a science and math education campaign aimed at younger Americans so as to enlist them as the next generation of semiconductor engineers, designers and workers. Hutcheson said that TSMC’s dominance in the semiconductor market was in part due to the mistake made by the United States and U.S. semiconductor companies in failing to retain and encourage Taiwanese engineers and technicians working in the United States, often educated in the United States, to stay in the United States. Instead, many moved back to Taiwan and helped build up Taiwan’s semiconductor capability contributing to a brain drain in the United States.[1]
CHINA’S MERCHANT MARINE & MARITIME MILITIA SUPPORT THE NAVY
The U.S. Naval War College report “Civilian Shipping and Maritime Militia: The Logistics Backbone of a Taiwan Invasion” is authored by Lonnie Henley and argues that for an invasion of Taiwan to be successful, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) “…would need to land 300,000 or more troops on Taiwan in total and that the PLAN amphibious fleet can only land around one division, roughly 20,000 troops, in a single lift.”[2]
HOW CHINA’S MERCHANT MARINE IMPROVES CAPABILITY TO INVADE TAIWAN
While skeptics point to shortages in PLAN’s support vessel fleet, the report says China has addressed the shortfalls of naval vessels by creating dual uses of commercial vessels operated by its maritime militia:
“The PLAN auxiliary fleet is inadequate to sustain large-scale combat operations, even if those operations were close to China’s shores as a Taiwan conflict would be. The PLAN has enlisted hundreds of civilian vessels to perform tasks ranging from over-the-shore logistics to at-sea replenishment, emergency repair and towing, medical support, casualty evacuation, and combat search and rescue, suggesting that its own inventory of support ships falls far short of what it deems necessary for a landing campaign. Skeptics will argue that this is more proof that the PLA itself does not take the invasion option seriously. The contrary view presented here is that the PLA does take these requirements seriously, but that it intends to rely on maritime militia support for large-scale combat operations, and specifically for a Taiwan invasion campaign.”[3]
THE MARITIME MILITIA
The maritime militia has now attracted attention: “The maritime militia (海上民兵) has attracted considerable attention in the past decade, led by the efforts of Andrew Erickson and Conor Kennedy at the U.S. Naval War College, focused mainly on its role in supporting China’s claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea … Kevin McCauley and Conor Kennedy have also looked at the role of civilian ships in military power projection outside East Asia … What has received much less Western attention is the maritime militia’s role in large-scale combat operations, despite Chinese authors having written extensively on it since the PLA began serious consideration of a Taiwan invasion in the early 2000s.”[4]
EVOLUTION OF CHINA’S COMMERCIAL SHIPPING TO SUPPORT TAIWAN INVASION
The report found that China’s prospects for invading Taiwan are challenged by the logistical and operational needs for landing a large number of soldiers on Taiwan’s heavily defended shoreline.
With that in mind, the U.S. Naval War College report analyzes the potential for China to successfully invade Taiwan based on its naval assets and the training of China’s maritime militia utilizing the ships and sailors in China’s commercial fleet.
The report notes:
“The Nanjing Military Region Mobilization Department director Guo Suqing observed in 2004 that a cross-strait island landing campaign would require large amounts of civilian shipping. He noted that there were many suitable ships available, some of which had already been retrofitted for wartime use, but warned that “the traditional form of last-minute non-rigorous civilian ship mobilization can no longer meet the needs of large-scale cross-sea landing operations.”[5]
This analysis prompted a move to not only increase naval assets but also to leverage commercial ships and crews for possible naval service.
At the same time, there has been a dramatic build-up of naval vessels by China. Since 2015, the PLAN actually has more ships in operation then the U.S. Navy.[6]
FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SHIPBUILDING ORDERS IMPROVE CHINA’S COMMERCIAL AND NAVAL SHIPBUILDING
The Washington, D.C. based Center for Strategic and International Studies issued a report entitled “In the Shadow of Warships: How foreign companies help modernize China’s navy.”[7]
CHINA STATE SHPBUILDING CORPORATION
The CSIS report says that one factor behind the PLAN’s growth has been foreign commercial orders at shipyards such as those at the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC). These orders have bolstered, not only the productivity and efficiency of the construction of commercial vessels, but also improved the efficiencies utilized in the construction of warships:
“China is one of only a handful of countries capable of building the large ocean-faring vessels that transport around 80 percent of global trade in goods. The industry leader is China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), which alone holds a 21.5 percent of the global shipbuilding market. The sprawling state-owned enterprise was formed in 2019 by the merger of China’s two largest shipbuilders, and today it directly controls over 100 subsidiaries.
CSSC is more than just a commercial shipbuilding giant. It also produces warships for the Chinese navy. The company proclaims itself to be the “main force” in furthering the development of naval weapons and equipment in support of national defense. CSSC is a linchpin in Beijing’s military-civil fusion (MCF) strategy, which aims to upgrade the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and level up China’s military science and technology industries while simultaneously strengthening instruments of national power across the board.”[8]
The CSIS report says military ship construction is concentrated at several shipyards:
“Yet, the well-documented connections between CSSC and the Chinese military have done little to dampen its commercial operations. Four shipyards operated by CSSC subsidiaries—Dalian, Jiangnan, Hudong-Zhonghua, and Huangpu Wenchong—are of particular interest. They collectively produce scores of surface combatants for the PLAN and attract shipbuilding contracts in the millions (and sometimes billions) of dollars from companies based outside of China and Hong Kong.”[9]
THE JIANGNAN SHIPYARD BUILDS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND EVERGREEN MARINE CONTAINER SHIP
The CSIS report includes a photo taken in February 2022 showing the Jiangnan Shipyard with a new aircraft carrier, the Fujian, being built alongside a container vessel with the green hull of Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine.
The report says that commercial satellite imagery taken at the Jiangnan shipyard on February 21, 2022, when the Chinese aircraft carrier and Evergreen container were sited together, also found that at least three Evergreen hulls were under construction “near China’s Type 003 aircraft carrier (i.e. the Fujian).”
Photo: CSIS & Maxar Technologies
The report summarizes the commercial military synthesis going on at the shipyard as follows:
“This blurring of military and commercial activity is best exemplified at Jiangnan Shipyard. Nestled on the mouth of the Yangtze River near central Shanghai, Jiangnan is where China’s third and most capable aircraft carrier, known as the Type 003, is being constructed. Right next to the warship, work is underway on a commercial container ship that bears a distinctive green hull, the hallmark of Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine Corporation.”[10]
On June 19th, 2022, China launched its third aircraft carrier. The carrier, called the Type 003 and christened Fujian, left its drydock at a shipyard outside Shanghai Friday morning and tied up at a nearby pier, state media reports said.
The third aircraft carrier would place China in a group of just 16 countries worldwide with the massive seaborne military airports. Around the Pacific, India, Japan and the United States operate carriers or are developing them, according to the Voice of America.(https://www.voanews.com/a/third-aircraft-carrier-to-help-china-match-us-japan-in-western-pacific-analysts-/6624478.html)
Evergreen’s purchases of ships from Chinese shipyards may be undermining Taiwan’s national security:
“Buying merchant ships from China presents a real security concern for Taiwan. The island lives under constant pressure from Beijing, which seeks to unify Taiwan with the Chinese mainland, by force if necessary. It should raise more than a few eyebrows in Taipei that Taiwan’s premier shipping company is pouring money into the coffers of shipyards assembling warships for the Chinese navy.
Evergreen is by no means the only foreign firm that relies on China’s shipbuilding prowess. French shipping titan CMA CGM has placed at least 46 orders totaling several billion dollars with a handful of Chinese shipyards since 2017. These orders include some of the world’s largest container ships powered by liquified natural gas (LNG), many of which were built at Jiangnan. In a near perfect encapsulation of the growing worry over “dual-use” technology, the same dry dock where the Type 003 currently sits was previously occupied by a CMA CGM container ship.”[11]
OTHER FOREIGN CARRIERS ALSO ENHANCE CHINESE SHIPBUILDING
The CSIS report alleges foreign ocean carriers and companies have aided China’s shipbuilding efforts in other ways:
“Foreign companies are tied to Chinese shipbuilders by more than just purchase orders. They also share technology and know-how with CSSC subsidiaries. French multinational naval engineering company Gaztransport & Technigaz SA (GTT) has entered into several agreements to make its technology available to Chinese shipbuilders. GTT also shares close ties with CMA CGM. According to reports released by GTT, over two dozen of the ships that CMA CGM ordered from Jiangnan and Hudong-Zhonghua since 2019 utilized GTT technology. GTT systems also feature in Chinese-built vessels for Hapag Lloyd (German) and Mitsui OSK Lines (Japanese).”
THE CASE OF CARNIVAL CRUSE LINES
Perhaps even more striking, the report says, is that in 2016, “Carnival Cruise Lines entered a joint venture with CSSC to stand up CSSC Cruise Technology Development. As part of the $1.5 billion deal, Carnival transferred two of its existing cruise ships to the new joint venture. Another two vessels are being built at Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipyard, located just across the Yangtze River from Jiangnan. While CSIS has not observed the construction of military vessels at Waigaoqiao, the shipyard is operated by yet another CSSC subsidiary. “[12]
The CSIS report goes on to warn that commercial technology transfers can have military consequences that benefit the PLAN:
“At face value, sharing capital and technology with CSSC subsidiaries may seem innocuous, but it should raise red flags for nations concerned about China’s growing military power. Facilitating better resource-sharing between military and civilian ventures is a critical element of China’s MCF strategy, and many of China’s shipbuilding facilities are being used for both commercial and military operations. Foreign capital can also aid in offsetting the research and development costs of military assets. Workers trained to construct commercial vessels may even be able to transfer some of their skills when working on PLAN warships.”[13]
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS WITH RUSSIA
China has also developed its naval technology via foreign trade and transfers with Russia.
A CSIS report cites Russian-Chinese military transfers in “The Changing Nature and Implications of Russian Military Transfers to China.”
That report notes:
“Russian-Chinese military transfers have increased sharply since 2015. These have been highlighted by a series of important arms transactions, including landmark contracts in 2015 for the sale of Su-35 combat aircraft and S-400 air defense systems worth $5 billion, followed by a series of important transactions involving the transfer of helicopters, submarine technology, and aircraft engines. Joint technology projects have been especially important due to their expansion into new areas such as missile defense, taking on greater strategic importance. Together with an increase in combined exercises, joint air patrols, and key leader engagements, the resumption of large-scale arms transfers has contributed to a growing military convergence between Russia and China while enhancing their strategic partnership. These transfers are also advancing China’s military expansion in the western Pacific, helping to tilt the regional balance more in China’s favor.”[14]
CONCLUSION: IS CHINA’S MERCHANT MARINE A ROLE MODEL FOR U.S. MERCHANT MARINE?
This U.S. Naval War College report explained how the maritime militia leverages commercial crews and commercial ships:
“The militia forces discussed here are very different, encompassing large-capacity commercial vessels including container ships, general cargo ships, bulk carriers, tankers, roll-on-roll-off (RO-RO) ferries, barges, semisubmersibles, ocean-going tugboats, passenger ships, “engineering ships,” and others, as well as smaller vessels … Authors from the Army Military Transportation University noted in 2015 that the force consisted of over 5,000 ships organized into 89 militia transportation units, 53 waterway engineering units, and 143 units with other specializations.
Unlike the U.S. Merchant Marine model, where government officers and crews take control of leased ships, Chinese maritime militia units are composed mostly of the regular crews of the mobilized ships, what the Central Military Commission (CMC) Militia and Reserve Bureau director called the ‘model of selecting militiamen according to their ship’ (依船定兵模式) … The close correlation between requisitioned ships and militia units is essential for integration into military operations.”[15]
To respond, the United States needs to rebuild its merchant marine and particularly its shipbuilding industry so that it can match the mobilization of maritime resources being developed by the PLAN.
Dr. Salvatore R. Mercogliano is an associate professor of history at Campbell University in North Carolina, an adjunct professor at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and a contributor to the maritime news service G-Captain.
He says the United States needs to embark on a NASA Moon project for shipping and shipbuilding if it is to catch up with China.
He has criticized the U.S. Navy for not supporting a strong U.S. merchant marine and commercial shipbuilding capability as China has:
“One of the reasons why our Navy finds itself in such poor shape today is that they rely on shipyards that build one or two ships a year rather than mass-producing ships so that you ask; ‘are you building ships or works of art?’ So, after World War II, the U.S. helps foreign shipyards build ships with this new technology of prefabrication which we developed before and during World Warr II and we go back to building ships in the old-fashioned way with these big shipyards … which is not as efficient…”[16]
The U.S. Navy’s failure to support competitive shipbuilding can be seen in the recent problems that have befallen the Zumwalt class of destroyers that cost $7 billion per vessel to produce.
In 2018, the magazine, Military Watch, summarized the failures of the program that will now make the United States Navy more vulnerable to a conflict with China:
“Developed as multirole warships to upgrade the U.S. Navy’s destroyer fleet, the Zumwalt Class has proven a near complete failure leading to the program being terminated with just three of the planned 32 warships entering service. The three warships have cost well over $7 billion each, and having suffered from poorly functioning weapons, stalling engines and an underperformance in their stealth capabilities among other shortcomings. They have almost entirely failed to fulfil the originally intended role of multipurpose destroyer warships, while the scale of cost overruns alone brings the viability of the program into question even if the destroyers were able to function as intended.” [17]
Mercogliano says that while the United States fails to invest in its maritime industry, China continues to widen its lead:
“Between 2010 and 2018 China invested $132 billion in subsidies for ships. Over the same period, the U.S. Title XI program (the ship finance program provided by the U.S. Maritime Administration) made $77 million not billion in loans. So, the U.S. is investing a fraction of what China is investing in shipping. What we are going to need is a start-up effort like the NASA Moon project.”[18]
Finance is critical: “If we can invest in bitcoin a currency that really doesn’t exist, why can’t we invest in something like a ship which does exist? How do we make shipbuilding and shipping profitable? How do we attract investors and technology? Let’s not forget we are in a race to develop the next generation zero emission maritime fuel and propulsion. Whoever develops that new technology is going to make a fortune. It’s the revolution in maritime shipping and if we’re not involved in that someone else is going to profit. “
Mercogliano also warns:
“The China State Shipbuilding Corporation builds more ships in one year than are in the entire U.S. Merchant Marine: 180 ships in 2021.”
China is ensuring that in the event of an emergency their trade is protected. China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) ensures a core fleet can meet China’s imports and exports move in case of a disruption. That is the plan of the Belt and Road initiative to ensure that if there is any disruption for any reason there is always a Plan B and Plan C.”
Building new commercial ships will also help the U.S. Navy especially in an emergency:
“Instead, the merchant ship can be in an active maritime trade, can be training crews and utilizing U.S. shipyards for new and replacement ships and you can ping that ship for contingencies. You’ll still need some special ships in reserve.”[19]
This is the way the Chinese are doing it.
FOOTNOTES
[1] https://rbtus.com/vlsi-researchs-hutcheson-proposes-how-u-s-can-regain-semiconductor-lead-following-auto-semiconductor-shortages/
[2] Henley, Lonnie D., China Maritime Report No. 21: Civilian Shipping and Maritime Militia: The Logistics Backbone of a Taiwan Invasion, Published 18 May, 2022, digital-commons.usnwc.edu, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=cmsi-maritime-reports
[3] https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=cmsi-maritime-reports, p.2
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] See this CSIS report How is China Modernizing its Navy? for more information: https://chinapower.csis.org/china-naval-modernization/ It says in part:” Over the last few decades, China’s navy has rapidly expanded. Around 2015, the Chinese Navy surpassed the U.S. Navy in total size, and the PLAN has continued to grow in the years since then. The U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that the Chinese Navy consisted of 348 ships and submarines in 2021, while the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) puts the figure slightly higher at 355 vessels. By comparison, the deployable battle force of the U.S. Navy comprised 296 vessels in 2021.2 The fleet sizes of other leading nations are comparatively smaller. As of 2021, the British Royal Navy consisted of approximately 76 ships and the Royal Australian Navy had a fleet of 44 ships.”
[7] Funaiole, Matthew P., Hart, Brian, Bermudez Jr., Joseph S., In the Shadow of Warships How foreign companies help modernize China’s navy, Published April 2022, features.csis.org, https://features.csis.org/china-shadow-warships/
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] https://features.csis.org/china-shadow-warships/ and also see: https://gtt.fr/sites/default/files/ir-pr-fy2019-27_02_2020_en_0.pdf
[13] https://features.csis.org/china-shadow-warships/
[14] https://www.csis.org/analysis/changing-nature-and-implications-russian-military-transfers-china
[15] https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=cmsi-maritime-reports
[16] https://rbtus.com/do-us-ag-lng-exporters-need-new-u-s-ships/
[17] U.S. Navy Considers Repurposing its Zumwalt Destroyers as Nuclear Armed Attack Ships (militarywatchmagazine.com)
[18] https://rbtus.com/do-us-ag-lng-exporters-need-new-u-s-ships/
[19] Ibid.
Cover Photo Image by https://pixabay.com/