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

  • flan [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    154
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  24
                  ·
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    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.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    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

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          1 year ago

          China: “Knock knock.”

          USS Ronald Reagan: “Who’s there?”

          China: “Dong Feng missile.”

          USS Ronald Reagan: “Dong Feng Missile wh-”

          Explosions

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              35
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  36
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “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

                  • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

            • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

                  • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

        • flan [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.