The New York Times’ David Sanger reported that China was increasing the number of ships in the PLA Navy. That was a lie.
Sanger reported on an ambitious Chinese naval build-up with this breathless warning:
Today, PLA admirals have fewer ships
than Zheng He. But, they get to keep
their balls. That’s a better deal, IMHO.
The new intelligence reports indicate that since Mr. Bush came to office, China has raced ahead with one of the most ambitious military buildups in the world – including building 23 new amphibious assault ships that could ferry tanks, armored vehicles and troops across the 100 miles to Taiwan, and 13 new attack submarines.
[snip]
Military experts in European capitals and in Washington say they do not dispute the American intelligence reports on the growth in quality and quantity of Chinese arms.
Wow, that sounds really scary. Hold me, David.
Members of Congress—at least those with shipyards slated for closing under the BRAC process—demanded action. Senator Susan Collins (R-Portsmouth) asked Secretary Rumsfeld if he was “concerned about projections that the Chinese fleet may well surpass the American fleet in terms of numbers in just a decade’s time.” Senator Chris Dodd (D-Groton) demanded the US “retain the capacity to counteract China’s expanding naval force both in the short and long term.”
Turns out, China has embarked on a massive buildsame.
The 2005 edition of Chinese Military Power includes a detailed numerical breakdown of China’s naval order of battle. The PLAN is the same size (in terms of surface combatants and submarines) it was in 2000.
Yup, that’s right. Same size.
Chinese Military Power—shortly before Mr. Bush entered office—declared the “The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) currently numbers some 60 destroyers and frigates [20 destroyers and 40 frigates], about 60 diesel and six nuclear submarines, and nearly 50 amphibious landing ships.”
According to the 2005 edition of Chinese Military Power (released the other day), the PLAN now “includes 64 major surface combatants, some 55 attack submarines, [and] more than 40 medium and heavy amphibious lift vessels …”
The 2005 edition includes a chart with surface combatants and submarines broken out in detail. Let’s compare those numbers with the 2000 Report:
| Item | 2000 | 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| Destroyers | “about” 20 | 21 |
| Frigates | “about” 40 | 43 |
| Diesel Submarines | “about” 60 | 51 |
| Nuclear Submarines | 6 | 6 |
| Medium/Heavy Amphibious Lift Ships | “nearly” 50 | 43 |
[CMP gives a slighltly different number of 2005 submarines in the chart (57) than in the text (55).]
Now, the numbers are just part of the story. China is replacing old boats with better ones. But that distinction—that China was improving quality at the same quantity—is nowhere to be found in Sanger’s alarmist piece of trash.
The facts don’t stop Sanger—in his write-up of the new report—from repeating the canard:
According to the report, … China is increasing the size of its submarine fleet.
Although those submarines are far less sophisticated than their American counterparts, Pentagon analysts note that increases in the Chinese fleet pose a critical challenge to the Navy…”
What increase, you blithering idiot?