1) If the lifebuoys attached to the railing at the top in the first picture are sized to the international standard of 0.75-0.8 meters in diameter, they would indicate a ceiling of 4.0-5.0 meters in height for the purported hangar, if the photo is to scale. That would be too short for the J-15 fighter, which has a height of 5.9 meters. Of course, we don't have any definitive objects in frame to scale the dimensions of the "carrier" module at ground level view, which makes guessing the dimensions of the module to be highly problematic. JANES, for example, suggests that the hangar could become taller and wider in modular sections closer to the front of the 001A carrier, much like the British Queen Elizabeth class carrier’s design (whose hangar height varies between 6.5-7 meters to 9 meters).

Another matter is that the hangar could be 6.5 meters to seven meters. Using the Google Earth image, we can see that the ratios of the distance between the portside to the far edge of the trench (about 9 to 10 meters) and the module’s width whole are about 1:5.3 as of March (green lines). But in the third photo, we see that the ratio has been expanded to about 1:6.3 or 1:7 (green lines), indicating that further work has extended the module’s width to 60 meters to 65 meters. Given a ratio of 2:10 for the hangar height to width ratio in the fourth photo (red lines), we can conclude a probable hangar height of 6.5 meters to 7.0 meters.

2) The deck elevator has a length of only 12 meters. That would not be big enough for the J-15 aircraft, which has a length of 21 meters. Of course, if this is a support structure for the island, then this point is moot. Alternatively, the Chinese could also modify the original Kuznetsov design to include a dedicated helicopter elevator (helicopters are smaller than fixed wing aircraft) or a dedicated drone elevator, leaving the J-15 fighters to use larger aircraft elevators. And if the module’s width is now currently 60 to 65 meters, it could add on 10 meters to make the elevator’s length to be 22 meters long; enough to accommodate the J-15 (still a rather narrow fit though).

3) The assumption of this being the 001A could be completely off. If so, there are then three other possibilities for the module: One, it could be a scaled down test mock up, to prove that Changxing Jiangnan can handle the complexities of aircraft carrier construction. However, this seems unlikely, considering the current ubiquity of CAD software for shipbuilding. Also, the module has been left in the open for at least five months. Presumably Chinese navy personnel would want to move any test module to a dedicated military facility for controlled evaluation and testing. Two, it could be for the Chinese Type 075 LHA. This also not likely, considering an overall 50 meter beam LHA would be enormous, larger than the USS America , and closer to the size of the Charles DeGaulle aircraft carrier. Since China already has the Liaoning , and replicating its basic hull should be well within China's modern shipbuilding capabilities, it is unlikely that they would go from a 55,000-65,000 ton carrier to a smaller and less capable 45,000-ton design. Or three, it could be for a civilian ship. This also seems unlikely, given the bridge island/aircraft elevator opening located on the side; most civilian freighters place the bridge superstructure towards the ship’s rear. Also, given the plethora of bulkheads in the module, if this were a civilian freighter, the bulkhead arrangement would not provide very much flexibility in transporting cargo. And a comparison of photos show that this module has clear structural similarities to the cross section of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

In sum, while there is a great deal can be learned from the sort of online treasure trove of open-source intelligence our forebears would be mystified by, nothing is proven. What is without debate is that, even if the module proves not to be the 001A, China’s navy is clearly making immense military investments, commensurate with its growing economic power, and thus gaining in its reach and capability. In addition to aircraft carriers, China is also adding new capabilities in amphibious warfare, stealthy manned and unmanned aviation, sophisticated guided missile destroyers capable of multiple missions including missile defense, new nuclear attack submarines. At the same time, it is shoring up longstanding weaknesses in naval helicopters and antisubmarine warfare aircraft (such as with the Y-8FQ maritime search aircraft).

This matters not just in any U.S.-China competition, but perhaps more so in China's relations with its neighbors. To put it another way, while the focus of recent U.S. military planning has been how to defeat “anti-access, area denial” capabilities, the extended reach allowed by such China’s naval power projection investments indicates that perhaps the U.S. and her allies should focus a bit more on AA/AD of their own.

Jeffrey Lin is currently a Senate Office volunteer and a former research intern at Brookings. Peter W. Singer is Director of Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings. The authors are much indebted to the participants at China Defense Forum and Sinodefence Forum for their insights on Chinese shipbuilding practices throughout the years.