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
Alternate alternate title: “Give us more money”, Navy intelligence says
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.
I would love to see the US military get it’s ass kicked by China.
Hahahahahahahaha
deleted by creator
laughs in grifter contractor charging the navy 60,000 dollars for a proprietary screw
Damn sounds like a superior system.
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.
Sadler argued that the U.S. has not built a comparable shipbuilding infrastructure because builders only have the U.S. government as a customer.
“The federal government is the sole customer … your biggest customer where you get your biggest margin of profit is building the big high-tech expensive naval ships,” Sadler said. “That’s the only show in town for us. And unfortunately, **because that’s the case, no one’s looking to get competitive **and building better container ships or the next generation commercial shipping vessel, which is what we really need to be doing.”
So the American naval yards derive much more revenue from the federal government than Chinese naval yards, yet they aren’t actually federally controlled. Also, they aren’t able to innovate or compete like china’s centrally managed naval yards.
Sounds like a real contradiction brewing.
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.
Real “sit the fuck down” moment
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
The US Navy has more admirals than ships lol.
How much of this is actually because China is better at building ships compared to the MIC looking to make more bag from a congress already terrified of China?
China is actually better at building and at building MORE due to having greater number of shipyards, skilled workers specific to the purpose, and general manufacturing capability. The MIC looking to make more bag = the 200x part, which is indeed an exaggeration. But 20x? 30x? Not unrealistic.
china is reaching levels of basedness long thought impossible
When China decides to do war communism
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
us military has actively recruited on twitch for ages
RIP to all the twitch posters who got insta banned for asking about drone strikes.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Idk if I believe it, sounds like Navy is just begging for more money.
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.
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.”
deleted by creator
also it doesn’t matter war between china and america would be nuclear
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
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
deleted by creator
The Jones Act really paid off, amirite?
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.
