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

  • Redrum714@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year 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.

        • panopticon [comrade/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah true, I'm at a pretty low level of consciousness today, I'm open to suggestions

            • panopticon [comrade/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I apologize for the toxicity, I've edited in some funnier and less bigoted insults, if I've overlooked anything I'll edit that too. Good calls on your part, no disrespect intended. Except to that ignorant jackass, lol

      • Redrum714@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year 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]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year ago

            A hypersonic missile is literally what it’s called. A missile that can reach speeds over Mach 5. Arguing semantics just makes you look like a fucking idiot.

            • emizeko [they/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Arguing semantics just makes you look like a fucking idiot.

              exactly what you're doing by pretending people use "hypersonic missile" to refer to ballistic ICBMs, and it worked!

            • AOCapitulator [they/them, she/her]
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are different things, do you really hate being wrong about little things like this so much you just cover your years and scream lalaalaalalaaa

    • emizeko [they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      testing

      lol pretty fun way to say failing over and over again. :cope:

      • Redrum714@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            The F-35 can literally fly through the rain without a problem. Training safety restrictions doesn’t change the fact that it’s the most advanced fighter jet in the world.

            I’m not sure I’d call the most powerful and technologically advanced military force in human history a joke, but you do lol

            • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              the US hasn't won a war since it allied with the Soviets, who proceeded to do all the heavy lifting. ever since it's been loss after loss, while financing and showing little treat brains like you movies of magic laser soldiers and video games where you can bleep bloop all the baddies with super cool star trek guns. which you have decided is more important than the US losing every war for 50+ years.

              the US military is as technologically advanced as a Tesla. in that it's expensive, kills children, is extremely heavy, starts fires that can't be extinguished, and has an excellent PR program... which you seem to have swallowed completely.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                That is a whole lot of stupid packed into one comment.. The internet seems to be giving you brain rot please go touch some grass.