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]
    ·
    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.

        • emizeko [they/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          remind me, what's the name of the USA's hypersonic missile?

          • 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.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
          ·
          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
            ·
            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]
              ·
              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
                ·
                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]
                  ·
                  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
                    ·
                    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.

                    • Dolores [love/loves]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      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?

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

                        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

                        • Dolores [love/loves]
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          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?

                          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                            ·
                            1 year ago

                            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

                            • Dolores [love/loves]
                              ·
                              1 year ago

                              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

                              • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                                ·
                                1 year ago

                                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.

                    • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      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.

          • Redrum714@lemm.ee
            ·
            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
                ·
                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
                    ·
                    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]
              ·
              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
                ·
                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]
                  ·
                  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
                    ·
                    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.

                    • Flinch [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      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?

        • flan [they/them]
          ·
          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]
            ·
            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.

      • flan [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        yea this whole thing probably becomes moot when other companies (maybe even just smic?) catch up to tsmc

      • star_wraith [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        China wants to control everything

        Siri, show me a map of US military bases globally versus Chinese bases.

        PIGPOOPBALLS

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • krolden@lemmy.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • ultraviolet [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • kot
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        deleted by creator

      • AbbysMuscles [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        China wants to control everything

        Works cited-

        Author: John Q. Dipshit

        Title: Just Trust Me, Bro

        Hotlink

      • Awoo [she/her]
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        China wants to control everything and they don’t care who gets in their way.

        Good. xi-lib-tears

      • zephyreks [none/use name]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        deleted by creator

      • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
        ·
        1 year ago

        China wants to control everything and they don’t care who gets in their way

        just projectile projectioning all over the screen

      • ZapataCadabra [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        I haven't seen a Lemmy lib in ages it feels like. How did you get here?

      • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        China wants to control everything and they don’t care who gets in their way.

        [fart noise]

      • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          extremely critical support for Reagan and Ayn Rand for their tireless efforts to cripple American industrial capacity

          • star_wraith [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            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…

      • TheLepidopterists [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hope you cry about China so much tonight that your eyes bleed you stupid racist dog.

      • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • emizeko [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        you say that, but have you considered that pee pee poo poo?