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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 154 points 3 years ago (128 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 128 child comments
  • load more comments (128 replies)
    [–] 84 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 81 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
  • [+] 77 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 70 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 67 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • [–] 61 points 3 years ago* (6 children)

    The US Navy doesn't have the personnel to staff the ships it has anyway. Most USN ships are severely under-crewed

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 59 points 3 years ago

    When China decides to do war communism xibe-check

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 3 years ago

    Alternate alternate title: "Give us more money", Navy intelligence says

  • source
  • [–] 54 points 3 years ago (23 children)

    Idk if I believe it, sounds like Navy is just begging for more money.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [–] 49 points 3 years ago

    haha central planning is a competitive advantage again? neolibs btfo

  • source
  • [–] 46 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 44 points 3 years ago
    [–] 39 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 41 points 3 years 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

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›