In a strikingly candid assessment, Admiral Daryl Caudle, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, has publicly acknowledged the growing challenge posed by China’s dramatic naval expansion.

Speaking in Tokyo during a 10-day Asia-Pacific tour, he described China’s shipbuilding capacity as “impressive,” while underlining growing concern about how Beijing may deploy its increasingly powerful fleet—and warning that America can no longer rely on its own naval supremacy alone.

Admiral Caudle’s remarks coincide with a critical moment in China’s maritime ascent. On 7th November, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) commissioned the Fujian, its most advanced aircraft carrier to date, while also launching sea trials of a new amphibious assault ship, signalling a newfound ambition to project force far beyond its coastal waters.

What is striking is not merely the number of vessels China is producing—its navy already exceeds the U.S. in total ship count—but the quality and scale of what it is building. Some of these are not coastal patrol craft but true blue-water platforms capable of extended reach. As Caudle put it, “that’s a large ship, very capable.”

A Strategic Pivot: Alliances and Shipbuilding

Rather than responding with panic, the U.S. strategy, according to Admiral Caudle, hinges on strengthening alliances—particularly with Japan, South Korea, and Australia. He visited the U.S. Navy’s Yokosuka base in Japan and toured local shipyards, underscoring Washington’s willingness to ramp up joint shipbuilding efforts.

The argument is straightforward: while China may be outpacing the U.S. in sheer numbers, the alliance network can pool its industrial base to match or even surpass Beijing’s output when coordinating closely. Caudle was forthright: “When you’ve got a lot of friends and allies, we have a pretty large, combined force ourselves.”

He also noted nascent efforts to expand undersea capability, referencing a U.S.-South Korea agreement to develop a nuclear-powered submarine, and mentioning Japan’s interest in similar plans—though he cautioned that domestic and political challenges persist.

The Challenge: Power Projection vs Numbers

Admiral Caudle’s concern is not simply that China is building more ships, but that it may put them to transformative use. The deployment of carriers and amphibious assault ships across the globe would mark a break from China’s historically regional posture, potentially threatening U.S. influence and stretching allied deterrents.

The Fujian and its sister vessels could eventually enable Beijing to operate far from its shores, safeguarding sea lines of communication, enforcing its territorial claims, or even projecting force in crises. Although China still lags behind the U.S. in aircraft carrier tonnage and critical platforms, its growing fleet—combined with diplomatic assertiveness—could force a reevaluation of the naval balance in the Indo-Pacific.

Risks and Costs: Can the Alliance Keep Up?

Even as the alliance response is being sharpened, serious risks and practical challenges loom. Industrial capacity in the U.S. has long been under strain: shipyards are ageing, cost overruns are common, and the pace of new-construction has not kept up with geopolitical ambition. Expanding production with allies like Japan and South Korea will require sustained investment, not just in steel and systems but in workforce, infrastructure, and political will.

Moreover, interoperability is easier said than done. Building ships together is one thing; ensuring they operate seamlessly under a unified command in crisis is another. Differences in doctrine, equipment standards, and strategic culture may prove difficult to bridge—especially if the mission shifts rapidly from peacetime deterrence to high-stakes confrontation.

There is also the danger of overextension. An expanded allied force is only effective if it remains ready. Maintenance costs, training burdens, and the sheer logistics of mooring or forward-deploying large numbers of capital ships could stretch even a coordinated alliance.

A Test of Credibility: Washington’s Wider Message

Admiral Caudle’s public tone—acknowledging China’s rise but emphasising alliance strength—reflects a broader strategic shift in Washington. Rather than denying China’s gains, U.S. military leadership appears focused on shaping a resilient counterweight. This serves a dual purpose: reassuring allies in the region and sending a message to Beijing that its ambitions will not go unchallenged.

But it is also a test of American credibility. If the U.S. and its partners fail to deliver on joint shipbuilding or if deployments remain symbolic rather than substantive, China could capitalise, tightening its grip on contested waters. On the other hand, if the alliance can translate rhetoric into concrete force posture, it may successfully blunt Beijing’s blue-water momentum.

Caudle’s comments come amid growing tension across multiple fronts. Japan’s recently elected conservative prime minister has stoked confrontation by suggesting a military response should China threaten Taiwan. At the same time, Beijing has shown no desire to dampen its maritime ambitions, even as it faces economic headwinds and calls for restraint from some quarters of its own government.

In this light, the admiral’s visit to Tokyo is more than a diplomatic box-ticking exercise—it is a signal. Washington is not only watching China; it is mobilising with allies. The intent is clear: to ensure that the region’s rising naval titans are met not with passivity, but with purpose.

What Comes Next

Looking ahead, there are several critical junctures that will likely determine whether the U.S. alliance posture can effectively respond to China’s naval ambition:

1. Shipbuilding Expansion: Can the U.S. and its regional partners scale up production fast enough to counter Beijing’s military-industrial surge? The capacity to produce new vessels—especially capital ships—will be a litmus test of resolve.

2. Submarine Development: The nascent plans for nuclear-powered submarines in South Korea and perhaps Japan warrant close attention. Such platforms would significantly complicate China’s maritime calculations and provide a potent undersea deterrent.

3. Forward Deployments: Strategic basing and force posture decisions—where ships are stationed and how quickly they can mobilise—will matter as much as numbers. Alliances must convert ship-building potential into operational readiness.

4. Diplomatic Tension Management: As alliance relationships deepen, managing political friction—particularly in democracies with public sensitivity to military expansion—will be vital. Domestic opposition in allied countries could slow or derail progress.

Admiral Caudle’s warning is unmistakable: China’s naval build-up is not merely quantitative, but qualitatively transformative. Its fleet is not simply growing—it is maturing, diversifying and preparing to operate well beyond China’s littoral waters.

In response, the U.S. is placing a renewed bet on alliances, industrial resurgence, and strategic cohesion. But whether this response will be enough remains to be seen. The scale of China’s ambition is vast, and the contest over sea power may define the balance of the Indo-Pacific for decades.

As China’s ships push into deeper waters, the question is no longer whether the U.S. can match Beijing’s numbers—it is whether it can marshal its partners, its shipyards and its political will fast enough to shape the maritime future on terms that safeguard stability, deterrence and the liberal order.

Main Image: By Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen (USAF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#/media/File:Chinese_honor_guard_in_column_070322-F-0193C-014.JPEG

Japan Is Right to Prepare for Military Action if China Strikes Taiwan