231
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Awoo@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] flan@hexbear.net 153 points 2 years 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.

load more comments (128 replies)
[-] Kaplya@hexbear.net 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[-] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 44 points 2 years ago

The war between US and China is an ideological one: finance capitalism vs industrial capitalism.

soviet-hmm

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Bnova@hexbear.net 67 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] GriffithDidNothingWrong@hexbear.net 61 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The US Navy doesn't have the personnel to staff the ships it has anyway. Most USN ships are severely under-crewed

[-] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 50 points 2 years ago

Literally getting Navy recruitment ads on Hasan's stream.

[-] take_five_seconds@hexbear.net 42 points 2 years ago

us military has actively recruited on twitch for ages

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] supafuzz@hexbear.net 42 points 2 years ago

fewer sailors to go down with the ship when the carrier groups get kinzhaled

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kristina@hexbear.net 59 points 2 years ago

When China decides to do war communism xibe-check

[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 58 points 2 years ago

Alternate alternate title: "Give us more money", Navy intelligence says

[-] hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net 54 points 2 years ago

Idk if I believe it, sounds like Navy is just begging for more money.

load more comments (17 replies)
[-] supafuzz@hexbear.net 49 points 2 years ago

haha central planning is a competitive advantage again? neolibs btfo

[-] captcha@hexbear.net 46 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] JuryNullification@hexbear.net 50 points 2 years ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] GorbinOutOverHere@hexbear.net 44 points 2 years ago
[-] ZapataCadabra@hexbear.net 39 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 41 points 2 years ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ultraviolet@hexbear.net 41 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
231 points (100.0% liked)

news

24554 readers
793 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS