The slide’s authenticity was confirmed by a Navy spokesperson, who cautioned that it was not meant to be an in-depth analysis.

The slide shows that Chinese shipyards have a capacity of about 23.2 million tons compared to less than 100,000 tons in the U.S., making Chinese shipbuilding capacity more than 232 times greater than that of the U.S.

The slide also shows the “battle force composition” of the countries’ two navies side-by-side, which includes “combatant ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, major amphibious ships, and large combat support auxiliary ships.” The ONI estimated that China had 355 such naval vessels in 2020 while the U.S. had 296. The disparity is expected to continue to grow every five years until 2035, when China will have an estimated 475 naval ships compared to 305-317 U.S. ships.

Another section of the slide provides an estimate on the percentage each country allocates to naval production in its shipyards, with China garnering roughly 70% of its shipbuilding revenue from naval production, compared to about 95% of American shipbuilding revenue.

Because of China’s centrally planned economy, the country is able to control labor costs and provide subsidies to its shipbuilding infrastructure, allowing the Chinese to outbid most competitors around the world and dominate the commercial shipping industry, Sadler said.

Alternative title - “Central planning is more efficient than markets” confirms US Navy

  • flan [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    154
    ·
    8 months ago

    wow guys we’d better go to war with the wrold’s manufacturing base that is 6500 miles away over an island 50 miles off its coast. This is going to go really well for us I can feel it.

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The US has tons of ICBMs and has been testing the LRHW for a years now. Short range hypersonic missiles is cutting edge tech is extremely difficulty to use accurately. If you think China’s version is much of a threat to the US military I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Are you illiterate? They asked for a US hypersonic missile which an ICBM literally is. That’s why I specified “short range” in the next sentence you dumbfuck

                • panopticon [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  24
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  You’re terminally dense. A hypersonic missile is capable of high-G maneuvering and self propulsion in the terminal phase of flight. An ICBM is capable of neither of those things, you’re just dead fucking wrong. Pack it up you donkey, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

                  Propulsion system of Russian hypersonic missiles in the terminal phase: scramjets

                  Propulsion system of an ICBM warhead in the terminal phase: ???

                  Just give it up dipshit, be a grown up and take the L

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Well unlike China the US prefers to prove that their tech works before trying to brag about it.

                • lmao, like the trillion dollar plane that can’t fly in the rain? go yank it to Top Gun some more, Michael Bay Jr.

                  the US military is the most expensive joke ever told in history. all it does is starve Americans, burn fossil fuels, and massacre unarmed civilians.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          8 months ago

          China: “Knock knock.”

          USS Ronald Reagan: “Who’s there?”

          China: “Dong Feng missile.”

          USS Ronald Reagan: “Dong Feng Missile wh-”

          Explosions

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yea I guess it is kind of embarrassing to just effortlessly mow down helpless peasant soldiers. But if you think that was some kind of challenge for the US military you are laughably naive.

            • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              35
              ·
              8 months ago

              if you think that was some kind of challenge for the US military you are laughably naive

              the yankees left north korea of their own accord, they weren’t getting their asses handed to them or anything. they kept fighting at the 38th parallel for 2 years because uncle sam just didn’t feel like advancing. only americans harbor such backwards superiority complexes towards asian peoples that kicked their ass

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yea Uncle Sam shoulda escalated the war killing millions of more Koreans instead of resolving it peacefully….

                I swear the anti-American circle jerk has given you people brain rot.

                • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  36
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  “resolving it peacefully”???

                  you arrogant, ignorant slime it ISNT FUCKING RESOLVED. a state of war exists between the Koreas with a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. the US dropped more munitions on Korea during this “de-escalation” than in the entire pacific theater of WW2. 1.2 million civilians were killed by the united states in the north, to this day the US imposes sanctions on essential goods to the DPRK, trying and during the 90s succeeding in starving their people. you talk about peace and Korean lives while defending the singular obstacle to peace and human wellfare in Korea, read a fucking book and become less of a monster

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Also with little to no real world military experience.

            The US would just cut of China from the rest of the world and starve them out. No need for a land war.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                If something drastic enough to get the US to go to war with China happens, the rest of the world (minus the usual authoritarian regimes) would absolutely go along with that.

                But… outside of a Tom Clancy novel a full blown US China war will likely never happen since it would be economic suicide for all involved.

            • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              8 months ago

              The US would just cut of China from the rest of the world and starve them out. No need for a land war.

              That would cause the US to starve itself long before China even felt it.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Do you think the US relies on Chinese food imports? The US is absolutely self sustainable with food. The country with a billion people is going to starve well before anyone else.

                • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Cool, that’s food checked off. Now what about manufacturing?

                  Also, the same could be said for China, do you think China relies on US food imports?

        • flan [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          8 months ago

          I see some of your other arguments about inexperience in a different reply. Yeah I see what you’re driving at, they haven’t been out there picking fights with smaller countries since WW2. Either way this is a country with a GDP about 67% the size of the US GDP (vs #3 Germany that is 6x smaller). It has 3x the population. It is the world’s manufacturing center and apparently has much much greater capacity for shipbuilding. Meanwhile the US and the rest of the countries who would likely align with them have forfeited their industrial capacity to China in favor of service economies. China’s military inexperience is probably the least relevant input into the outcome. If there’s a war with China it will be long, brutal and fought on China’s doorstep - an awful long way from the US. They have similar technology and much greater manufacturing potential. This isn’t a winnable situation by the US. China won’t go the way of Japan and run short on resources.

          • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            8 months ago

            they haven’t been out there picking fights with smaller countries since WW2

            Instead they’ve probably been training for a much larger fight. NATO doctrine at this point is mostly geared around asymmetric warfare against a much poorer opponent. Like we’ve seen how Ukrainian troops given NATO training end up just switching back to their own doctrine.

            The PLA on the other hand is concerned with two things: defense against the West and maybe recapturing Taiwan, which would also involve fighting the West.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because of China’s centrally planned economy, the country is able to control labor costs and provide subsidies to its shipbuilding infrastructure, allowing the Chinese to outbid most competitors around the world and dominate the commercial shipping industry, Sadler said.

    NOOOOOO BUT WHAT ABOUT US EXCEPTIONALISM AND INNOVATION AND FREE MARKETERINOS wojak-nooo

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Markets might be good at ‘discovery’-- they’ll try to generate more distinct options in the attempt to find a new niche or competitive edge.

      The military generally doesn’t usually want that. Fleets of uniform ships promote economies of scale and interchangeability, and a clear migration process.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        ·
        8 months ago

        Markets aren’t actually good at discovery. They’re good at diversity.

        What I mean by that is they’re not actually innovative like the capitalists like to claim, almost all real innovation comes from state invested research and scientific efforts, not markets. What markets are REALLY good at is taking a product that already exists and making 5000 different variants of that same product for niche purposes. We have 40 different hatchback cars that all essentially serve the same purpose but appeal to different people in very small different ways for example. This is what markets do extremely well, much better than centralisation in fact.

        What they don’t do well is risk taking, because capitalists seek to minimise risk. This is why they don’t actually innovate.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        But have you considered that most militaries don’t even want to own capabilities? That’s why we’re offering subscriptions with tiered pricing so you can get exactly the capabilities you want without over paying. Consider whether you need auto targeting and whether Raytheon PremiumPlus is the right tier for you!

  • Kaplya@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I have said many times already, a US-China war won’t be centered around sinking surface fleets. This isn’t WWI or WWII.

    The problem China will encounter with the US Navy is their submarines that can terrorize shipping lanes (a large portion of Chinese export logistics) and thereby cutting off goods/commodities into/out of China, including disruption of US import/export itself.

    Why do you think China has been concentrating so much on the Belt and Road Initiative? Because only by moving their logistics inland can they avoid supply chain disruption which the US military cannot reach.

    The war between US and China is an ideological one: finance capitalism vs industrial capitalism. The US believes that it can sink China through financial means, and China believes that they can stifle the US by depriving them of real manufacturing goods.

    This is the ultimate showdown between ideologies, and we will find out the answer within our lifetime.

    • pillow [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      8 months ago

      finance capitalism vs industrial capitalism

      I don’t think it really makes sense to adduce an industrial capitalism in china at its (clearly very advanced) level of financial development. under capitalism industrial and bank capital have to merge to form finance capital; if they don’t then that contradicts the idea that it’s capitalism in the first place. so at this point china’s system is either finance capitalism or it’s not capitalism at all

      • wantToViewEmojis@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        yeh like, its just socialism with a mixed market-comand economy, there is not a dictatorship of industrial bourgeoisie readying for war against the finance bourgeoisie. This upcoming conflict is the imperliasts vs the imperialised, and since the imperialists live off the labour of the imperialised, they have also dug their own grave industrially

  • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    8 months ago

    I mean this is just basic society building. A country with 1.5 billion people should be able to out produce one of 330 million. Especially when you consider how inefficient US capitalism is.

    • Comp4 [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      8 months ago

      Even if the numbers are off by a fair bit it seems obvious to me that China has a big advantage when it comes to production in comparison to the USA in most sectors.

        • Comp4 [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Well even if we ignore military matters. A robust shipbuilding industry generates economic benefits through job creation, technology development, and exports of naval vessels to other countries. This can boost China’s economy and enhance its defense industrial base. China having a massive tradefleet seems like a big advantage for them. (Just musings of a layman)

        • pillow [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          MAD is weird, if the PLA didn’t exist at all the US could just roll up and blockade china and say “cool you have nukes, if you use them then we retaliate and a billion of your people die” and that’s that

          • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            8 months ago

            that is true but MAD also means that the US and China can never afford to get into a direct conflict. If China were to invade Taiwan America could supply Taiwan arms but China seem to have far too much sense for that after all why go to war when you’re winning the peace

            China also don’t seem interested in military involvement in conflicts they have no stake in

    • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah this sounds like they’re just saying “give us another trillion dollars to build shipyards we’re definitely not going to spend it on private jets and coke.”

    • Sleve_McDichael [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s always this. Any time the US military complains about “falling behind,” it’s just them holding their hands out for more money.

      The pod did an episode about it, I think citations-needed

    • Hexbear2 [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 months ago

      The US wastes so much money on failed projects to enrich defense contractors. The F35, Ford Class, DDG-1000, LCS program, etc. The US military is a defense contractor welfare program.

      • Redrum714@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        lol do you expect the military to not try and improve its weapons of war? Also calling the F35 a failure is hilariously wrong

        • Hexbear2 [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, we aren’t fighting a 1980s war anymore. The next warfare fronts will start off with shooting down satellites, cutting ocean cables, sinking ships, and cyber attacks against everything-not just military targets, but all targets. Building manned fighter planes and ships is nothing more than a waste of money.

          The future (and how the US won WWII), is cheap distributed capabilities. Small unmanned, or minimally manned platforms is the future of warfare.

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Ahh yes those unmanned platforms that rely entirely on satellite navigation are going to work really well when the GPS satellite system is non functional.

            Electronic warfare is a double edged sword. It works great under perfect conditions, but when shit hits the fan most unmanned platforms are going to be entirely useless.

            Even with an intact satellite system, modern electronic warfare jamming makes manned aircraft an absolute necessity. WW3 will be fought like WW2 a lot more than you think.

            • Hexbear2 [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              8 months ago

              It will not be, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is no sustainment capability. Missiles guarantee that. The US won WWII through RECYCLING MODEL Ts. The US shipped it’s scrap to China, who is using it to build out their country.

              All the surface ships on all sides will be gone in a matter of weeks, there will be no Naval Battles, missiles will take out everything, and all that will be left to do is launch the nukes and kill everyone, that’s what WWIII is going to look like.

              THIS IS WWIII:

              https://www.nuclearwarmap.com/map01.html

              You’d better hit play now and watch, because when it’s happening, you won’t be able to see it, and probably not even know it’s happening.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                You clearly have no idea how modern electronic warfare works and the cascading effects it will have on literally everything.

                How do you expect a country to find every naval ship on the planet with no sat comm, gps or satellite imagery? Missiles will be extremely inaccurate when they solely rely on internal navigation systems.

                Obviously nukes are a moot point since that would just be an extinction even instead of a world war. Outside of nukes the next world war will be a lot about who can handle their electronically dependencies failing.

                The US won WWII through RECYCLING MODEL Ts

                And you had the nerve to say I don’t know what I’m talking about lol oof

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes I’m a liberal who actually takes interest on being informed on military matters and reality.

            • Hexbear2 [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              You don’t know fucking shit. How about you read the National Defense Strategy, the Cyber Strategy, the NDAA, or study capability gap assessments before you mouth of like you know something. DEWs, and platforms like LUSV/MUSV, and drone warfare is the future.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                lol are you replying to the wrong comment? I didn’t anything about drone warfare.

                • Hexbear2 [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Did you, or did you not say the following?

                  lol do you expect the military to not try and improve its weapons of war? Also calling the F35 a failure is hilariously wrong

                  Yes I’m a liberal who actually takes interest on being informed on military matters and reality

  • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    8 months ago

    As neat as this sounds, its likely that surface fleets will be far less relevant in a modern symmetric war. Missiles will turn any large surface vessel into a coffin. Same with fighter jets. Any WWII style mass of heavy vehicles are now just missile targets. Except subs.

    Missiles: cheap missiles, nuclear missiles, smart missiles, orbital missiles, anti-air missiles, anti-tank missiles, anti-missile missiles. And when you think about it, combat drones are like reusable missiles. Unless they’re suicide drones, then they’re piloted missiles.

    • JuryNullification [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      8 months ago

      As I’ve posted before:

      The day of the aircraft carrier has definitely passed. The only thing they’re really good at is bombing poor people. Submarines are, without a doubt, better at naval warfare.

      However, missiles don’t have unlimited range, and you have to get them within range of the target somehow. A surface ship can carry more missiles than a submarine and can replenish faster.

      Also, much like you can’t win a war with aircraft, you can’t win a war with submarines. In order to take and hold ground, you have to land ground troops, which you can only do with surface ships.

      Combined arms win wars, not wunderwaffen.

      • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        8 months ago

        The thing is people dont know what style of surface fleet is going to be useful for actually securing the seas. We only know subs are still good as is. I suspect many very small, missile armed boats.

        • JuryNullification [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Swarms of small, cheap boats shooting cheap missiles are extremely effective against larger, more expensive targets. The problem with that model is that you can’t do “force projection” with 200 guys on 100 jet skis as well as you can with 200 guys on one big boat. By that, I mean you can’t sail from Iran to Hawaii in a jet ski.

          So, you start looking at corvettes and coastal patrol craft, make a ton of compromises so it can do a ton of different missions on paper, and end up with garbage like the LCS that doesn’t do anything well. Those fuckers can’t even make it from San Diego to Hawaii on a single tank of gas because they wanted to squeeze a few more knots out of it.

          I think, ideally, you have a wide range of vessels that can cover a couple different types of missions each, concentrating most of your effort on domestic coastal patrol craft that can prevent enemy infiltration of your coasts and corvettes that can take the fight to the enemy. If you intend to engage in ground combat overseas, you’ll need a fleet of amphibious landing ships. These I would split into two categories: the smaller category focuses on carrying landing craft that can establish a beachhead, and the larger category focuses on ships that can get really close to shore and deliver large quantities of troops and materiel at a time. The second category can be converted civilian ships, and thus you don’t need to maintain an inventory, just a thriving domestic cargo transport economy. The rest of your naval budget goes to submarines and hospital ships (as hospital ships can actually do good things unlike every other navy ship).

          A side benefit to having lots of small ships vs a small number of expensive big ships is that you develop more effective leadership skills in more junior officers, as you can have a Lieutenant (I’m using US Navy ranking structure out of convenience) captaining a coastal patrol craft with a few dozen crew, which then translates to more effective senior officers. In my ideal socialist navy, there wouldn’t be an officer/enlisted split. You would just have different career paths

          • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            8 months ago

            I think, ideally, you have a wide range of vessels…

            Sounds expensive. Why not just make one ship that can fill all roles and keep manufacturing costs down? Like the F-35.

          • Hexbear2 [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            LCS was a failure because Secretary of the Navy Mabus was a total fucking moron and had no business developing ships. Repeat that, Ad Naseum, for every Navy ship. The US Navy’s Bureaucracy is more of a threat to the US Navy than China–and I’m not disparaging China’s capabilities here.

            There is room for a concept like an LCS, but it needs built on OSVs, which are basically oceangoing tugs with relatively big decks and open cargo bays as a baseline ship and different packages that can be installed. In other words, build Ford F150s and then carry what is needed on the backs of them, whether vertical launch systems, anti-sub warfare, replenishment, vtol drones, etc.

            https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship

            The US Navy won’t do it, because it’s not “sexy” like the LCSes.

  • ZapataCadabra [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    8 months ago

    Is this at all a mistake similar to the USSR spending itself in a hole on their military? I know they are wildly different situations but it is food for thought. My gut says a big naval fleet is a necessary deterrent to US meddling and the difference is USSR got bogged down in wars abroad while China does not. But I’m curious on youse guys’ thoughts.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      The vast majority of China’s shipbuilding capacity is commercial; China is the world’s largest commercial ship builder and builds almost twice as much as #2 (South Korea). While China only has a few dedicated naval yards, commercial ship builders can be retooled to make combat vessels and (probably more importantly) logistics ships in the event of war.

    • ultraviolet [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      the article does mention the shipyards are used both for military and civilian trade ships, and given China’s maritime supply lines for the Belt and Road, it does make sense for them to invest in this area. I only know the basics and can’t comment more on either the BRI or China’s navy