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

    • Comp4 [she/her]
      ·
      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]
          ·
          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
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          deleted by creator

          • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
            ·
            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]
      ·
      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]
      ·
      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]
      ·
      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
        ·
        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]
          ·
          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
            ·
            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]
              ·
              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
                ·
                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
            ·
            8 months ago

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

            • Hexbear2 [any]
              ·
              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
                ·
                8 months ago

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

                • Hexbear2 [any]
                  ·
                  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