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
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.
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.
ICBMs are a different class from hypersonics, you mediocre dunce
Ableism? We can be more creative with our insults here
Yeah true, I'm at a pretty low level of consciousness today, I'm open to suggestions
Me too, I'd just go for ignorant jackass or something
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
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
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
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.
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!
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
testing
lol pretty fun way to say failing over and over again. :cope:
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.
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
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.
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.
China: "Knock knock."
USS Ronald Reagan: "Who's there?"
China: "Dong Feng missile."
USS Ronald Reagan: "Dong Feng Missile wh-"
Explosions
Dong Feng Missle: Misses by 27 miles
USS Ronald Reagan: Made in China lol
it wasn't even relevant ten years ago. stop buying the absolute cheapest shit available, that's why you think Chinese stuff is junk.
western chauvinists really think they can increasingly offshore all their production for forty years with no material consequences
(paying a quarter of what a properly made thing should cost) damn this chinese stuff is always garbage, the problem must be china
at least in the audio and photography worlds, the implausibly cheap Chinese stuff turns out to be perfectly serviceable more often than not these days
Chinese buildings are made of cardboard and the missiles are made of tin foil cuz life is cheap in the east. These stupid fucking tankies removed China too much to understand that
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.
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
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.
"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
Yes a ceasefire is peaceful compared to full blown war you fucking moron. The only thing keeping NK a complete shit hole is themselves and China.
It truly takes a special kind of stupid to think the DPRK is the victim here.
the full blown war did not stop when the US was forced back from the north by the Chinese and Koreans. 2 more years that you are somehow failing to perceive of warfare on the 38th parallel and indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in north korea. two years of endless bombing of every fucking building the US airforce could find, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
only thing keeping NK a complete shit hole is themselves
oh no, history stops existing the moment the US stops actively bombing you, how could destroying their country possibly affect them after the fact. why would the US bans on exports to a country they blew up all the fucking factories in affect their well-being. and why are the Koreans so rude to America after all this?
The full blown war stopped when they agreed on a ceasefire… the US didn’t bomb North Korea after that, the hell are you going about?
South Korea was devastated after the war as well, yet they’re a thriving modern country today. The US is still technically at war with NK so why the hell would they trade with their enemies?
and why are the Koreans so rude to America after all this?
Probably because they chose an ass backwards authoritarian regime that makes their lives miserable up and to this day. Yet South Korea is one of the most pro-American countries in the world, weird how that happens huh lol
the shocking confidence of someone who doesn't have the barest outline of the subject repeating the canned lines they learned in what, middle school? like its fucking gospel. you literally can't follow what you said in this comment chain, your first response to me was asserting the lack of US progress after being defeated by China and Korea in the North was out of a desire for peace. i have refuted this with the evidence of warfare continuing for two years after that and now you're acting like this fact is inadmissable.
South Korea was devastated after the war as well, yet they’re a thriving modern country today
and is there anything different in say, who the south was allowed to trade with in contrast to the north? any country with military bases in the south that gave it a lot of economic aid perhaps?
Lmao I think you’re just arguing with yourself at this point. Do you think there was 2 years of fighting after the ceasefire or something? Nothing I said was outside of literal historical records, but I guess if you view recorded history as “gospel” I can understand why you are so historically inept.
and is there anything different in say, who the south was allowed to trade with in contrast to the north?
Yea, people they weren’t at war with genius. Like holy shit a child would have better understanding of geopolitics
you didn't know the war didn't end after the US was removed from the north at the beginning of this thread, or you profoundly misunderstood the character of the later stages of the war. now you're attempting to cover for this by claiming i don't grasp the chronology and moving around 2 years of warfare i was never confused about the location of. check my first comment, lmao dork
what i want to know is what makes someone so fundamentally incurious and foolish that when they discover something they thought was true might be untrue, instead of investigating or listening to people eager to educate them, they dig in their heels and deploy all the tricks in their (quite insubstantial) rhetorical arsenal to insist upon the falsehood. it's okay to be wrong about things, it won't kill you
You’re arguing with yourself again lol
Never once did I say the war ended when the US was getting pushed back. The war “ended” with the signing of the armistice and it’s been a ceasefire ever since. The Korean War timeline is not that complicated.
It truly takes a special kind of stupid to think the DPRK is the victim here.
Yeah only stupid people could possibly think that the targets of an indiscriminate bombing campaign that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians are victims at all.
Like, fuck all the way off you chauvinistic freak.
Wish someone dropped 1.2 million tons of bombs on the blast shield that is your dense skull
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.
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.
The literal authoritarian regimes… China, Russia, NK
Chinas manufacturing has been on a steady decline for years, South East Asia has already proven they are capable and willing to pick up after China.
You people sure don’t like it when you get a dose of reality. Try being informed instead of following internet circlejerks.
You live in a propaganda bubble so thick you can't even see how deluded you are, you're truly pathetic. And racist. Fuck off
Lmao the “And racist” part at the end is the cherry on top. Truly amazing how willfully delusional people can be.
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.
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.
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?
Both sides would be pretty fucked when it comes to manufacturing. Both sides would just adapt tho.
China does rely on US and global imports. They’re a net importer and it’s been getting worse in recent years.
Both sides would be pretty fucked when it comes to manufacturing
This is why everything in your house says "made in China", right? because they have no manufacturing capacity?
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.
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.
yea this whole thing probably becomes moot when other companies (maybe even just smic?) catch up to tsmc
China wants to control everything
Siri, show me a map of US military bases globally versus Chinese bases.
China have nuclear weapons you can't go to war with China.
Also China is not Nazi Germany stop comparing every country we're geopolitically opposed to nazis
opposing the nazis was the last time the US was on the right side of something. Comparing things to nazis is like Al Bundy saying he threw four touchdowns.
Comparing China to the Nazis is hysterical, and the Nazis were flat out colonial expansionists who were gunning to occupy basically the entire planet. China wants government control over Taiwan as a matter of reunification. It isn't annexing Japan.
What are you scared China will do? They aren't colonizing the world, they aren't committing genocide, and they are way less likely to instigate hot conflict of any kind than their peers.
They're scared China will develop the productive capital it needs to meet the needs of most of the world's workers. American capitalists won't have any way to justify their existence.
Hey they are one of the few instances who haven't de-fedded (lol) from hexbear and ive seen some good takes from users there so please dont be an instance-ist.
These dense dipshits are welcome to keep showing up for abuse and reeducation
the only major leader who wanted to get rid of Nazism in the 1930s was Stalin. The west was fine with Hitler as long as his expansion didn't interfere with western colonialism and/or caused war solely with the Soviet Union
Bruh your army went up against the Chinese in the 1950s and got smacked around when the PLA could barely scrape together enough planes or ships to credibly have an air force or navy.
Your military consistently loses to irregulars and militias fighting with small arms and improvised bombs.
Your MIC is dipping into its emergency artillery shell reserve after just 1 year of supplying Ukraine.
In 20 years we'll be looking back at this and debating exactly which conflict was America's Suez crisis.
what if they're all America's Suez crisis and America is doing the equivalent of Britain and France repeating the suez crisis over and over again
China wants to control everything
Works cited-
Author: John Q. Dipshit
Title: Just Trust Me, Bro
As opposed to the countries actively rooting for a genocide because it hurt the feelings of a vassal state?
China wants to control everything and they don’t care who gets in their way.
Good.
Neither the French nor the British were too keen on stamping on Nazism because they saw Communism as the greater threat. When the Soviets tried to build an alliance to intervene against the Germans they were rebuffed at every turn.
Even as the Japanese was committing endless war crimes and atrocities in China, the Americans were happy to sustain their war economy with iron, steel, copper, and oil until it encroached on French interests.
China wants to control everything and they don’t care who gets in their way
just projectile projectioning all over the screen
I haven't seen a Lemmy lib in ages it feels like. How did you get here?
China wants to control everything and they don’t care who gets in their way.
[fart noise]
The time for regret is now. 20 years ago the US might have been able to defeat China but we certainly couldn't manage it now. Neoliberalism has hollowed out the Military-Industrial Complex to the extent that the US just couldn't sustain a major war, especially a naval one.
extremely critical support for Reagan and Ayn Rand for their tireless efforts to cripple American industrial capacity
Capitalism in the US had to evolve into the neoliberal finance capital outsourcing capitalism by the 80s. The by the 70s the economic growth from rebuilding industrial capacity globally was spent. Capitalism in the US was experiencing a massive profitability crisis, and finance capital and outsourcing (what I think of as the two pillars of neoliberalism) was how that contradiction was resolved.
But now neoliberal has squeezed as much juice out of the orange as it can. What happens next is up for grabs…
I hope you cry about China so much tonight that your eyes bleed you stupid racist dog.
You say China wants to control everything like it's a bad thing. The choice is socialism or barbarism. Pull your head out of your ass.
laughs in grifter contractor charging the navy 60,000 dollars for a proprietary screw
In 1944 there were 256 flags for 6,084 ships; today there are 359 flag officers for 280 ships.
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.
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.
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!
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.
The war between US and China is an ideological one: finance capitalism vs industrial capitalism.
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
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.
The US Navy doesn't have the personnel to staff the ships it has anyway. Most USN ships are severely under-crewed
Literally getting Navy recruitment ads on Hasan's stream.
critical support for the navy recruiting its own saboteurs
fewer sailors to go down with the ship when the carrier groups get kinzhaled
Thanks to the 1990's dream of "optimal manning," they've ground sailors down so that only the laziest and most incompetent leaders stay in.
Alternate alternate title: "Give us more money", Navy intelligence says
Idk if I believe it, sounds like Navy is just begging for more money.
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.
also it doesn't matter war between china and america would be nuclear
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)
yeah I agree China has a strong manufacturing industry which has made them a world power
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
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."
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
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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
Yes I’m a liberal who actually takes interest on being informed on military matters and reality.
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.
lol are you replying to the wrong comment? I didn’t anything about drone warfare.
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
haha central planning is a competitive advantage again? neolibs btfo
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
They tried to make a ship that would cover about 1/4th of tasks. Effect was LCS.
just make one ship that can fill all roles
Because then you end up with an aircraft carrier
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.
don't for get the anti-anti-missile missile missiles
What like a cruise missile that spins out smaller missiles to intercept incoming missiles while the main warhead continues on target????
They don't know where they are, but they know where they are not.
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.
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
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.
