• =?UTF-8?Q?Alarming_Navy_Intel_Slide_Warns_Of_China=e2=80=99s_200_Ti?= =

    From a425couple@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 13 09:28:48 2023
    XPost: sci.military.naval, soc.history.war.misc, alt.economics
    XPost: seattle.politics

    Best to go to the citation, multiple graphics and videos.

    from https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity

    Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns Of China’s 200 Times Greater
    Shipbuilding Capacity
    The Office of Naval Intelligence is sounding the alarm about the huge
    gap in U.S. and Chinese shipbuilding capacity and its implications.

    BY
    JOSEPH TREVITHICK
    |
    PUBLISHED JUL 11, 2023 1:25 PM EDT
    china-us-shipbuilding-gap
    USN
    SHARE
    JOSEPH TREVITHICK
    View Joseph Trevithick's Articles
    FranticGoat

    A U.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome
    disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels
    and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by
    China's shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This underscores longstanding concerns
    about the U.S. Navy's ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as
    sustain its forces afloat, in any future high-end conflict.

    In a statement to The War Zone, the U.S. Navy has confirmed the
    authenticity of the slide, seen in full below, which has been
    circulating online.

    <em>USN</em>
    USN
    The most eye-catching component of the slide is a depiction of the
    relative Chinese and U.S. shipbuilding capacity expressed in terms of
    gross tonnage. The graphic shows that China's shipyards have a capacity
    of around 23,250,000 million tons versus less than 100,000 tons in the
    United States. That is at least an astonishing 232 times greater than
    the United States.

    U.S.-based shipbuilding capacity was in decline even before the end of
    the Cold War, but steadily shrunk even more afterward. It is at a
    particularly low point, across the board, now.

    The slide also includes a note about the relative "naval production % of overall national shipbuilding revenue" for each country, and that this
    is estimated to be over 70 percent in China. The stated estimated
    percentage for U.S. shipyards is clearly legible in the versions of the
    slide available online, but it appears to be 95 percent.

    <em>USN</em>
    USN
    The slide also includes projected sizes for the U.S. Navy and PLAN
    "battle forces" – defined as the total number of "combatant ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, major amphibious ships, [and] large
    combat support auxiliary ships" – for every five years between 2020 and
    2035. It says that as of 2020, the PLAN had 355 battle force ships and
    the U.S. Navy had 296. By 2035, the gap between the figures for China
    (475) and the United States (305 to 317) widens substantially.

    <em>USN</em>
    USN
    China's People's Liberation Army Navy is already the largest in the
    world in terms of total vessels and is steadily acquiring a range of
    more modern and capable designs, including a growing fleet of aircraft carriers. The figures provided show the size gap between China's naval
    fleets and those of the United States only continuing to grow.


    It is important to note up front that the slide presents estimates and projections, and that gauging shipbuilding capacity is a complex and multifaceted affair, in general. For instance, is unclear how the naval percentage of total shipbuilding revenue was calculated.

    How ships are categorized can often be a point of debate, as well,
    though this often does not impact whether or not ships fall into a
    broader "battle force" definition. As a relevant example, the PLAN's
    Type 055 warships, its most modern and capable surface combatants, are typically described as destroyers. However, the U.S. Navy often refers
    to them as cruisers based on their displacement and other features.


    The U.S. Navy itself has acknowledged that the Office of Naval
    Intelligence (ONI) slide does not reflect a definitive data set and is,
    at least in part, a living document.

    “The slide was developed by the Office of Naval Intelligence from
    multiple public sources as part of an overall brief on strategic
    competition," a U.S. Navy spokesperson told The War Zone. "The slide
    provides context and trends on China’s shipbuilding capacity. It is not intended as a deep-dive into the PRC [People's Republic of China's]
    commercial shipbuilding industry."

    "It’s been iterated on over time and the unclassified sources used most recently were commercially-available shipbuilding data,
    publicly-available U.S. Navy long-range shipbuilding plans from the 2023 Presidential Budget (PB23), and the publicly-discussed approximate
    projected future PLAN [People's Liberation Army Navy] force," that
    spokesperson added.

    With this in mind, it is worth pointing out that the slide's projections
    and estimates are heavily influenced by the inherently dual-purpose
    nature of China's state-run shipbuilding enterprise.

    "PLAN surface ship producers are mixed military commercial" and "most PLAN-associated construction [is] completed in CSSC [China State
    Shipbuilding Corporation] facilities," the slide says. "China is the
    world's leading shipbuilder by a large margin" and the country "controls
    ~40% of [the] global commercial shipbuilding market."


    This is certainly true and relevant to the emerging gap between the PLAN
    and U.S. Navy's battle force sizes. At the same time, it's not clear how
    much the U.S. shipbuilding capacity figures in the slide factored in
    commercial capacity. The commercial shipbuilding industry in the United
    States is far smaller and has less involvement in naval projects,
    overall, as well as not being subject to centralized state control.

    Still, some examples do exist. U.S. shipbuilder General Dynamics NASSCO
    is a prime example, with its two main business areas being large
    commercial cargo and tanker ships and auxiliaries for the U.S. Navy. The
    design of the U.S. Navy's Lewis B. Puller class of seabase ships is
    derived directly from NASSCO's Alaska class oil tanker.

    The U.S. Navy's <em>Lewis B. Puller</em> class seabase ship USS&nbsp;<em>Hershel "Woody" Williams</em>, a design derived from a
    commercial oil tanker. <em>USN</em>
    The U.S. Navy's Lewis B. Puller class seabase ship USS Hershel "Woody" Williams, a design derived from a commercial oil tanker. USN USN
    In addition, the slide's overall battle force figures do not directly
    line up with other official U.S. military data. The long-term
    shipbuilding plan that the U.S. Navy published in March 2019 indicated
    that the service would have 301 battle force vessels in the coming
    fiscal year. The Pentagon's annual report to Congress on Chinese
    military and security developments in 2020 put the respective Chinese
    and U.S. Navy battle force figures at 350 and 293.

    The most recent report on China from the Pentagon, published last year,
    says that the PLAN's battle force inventory was 340 vessels in 2021. The
    U.S. Navy's long-term shipbuilding plan for the 2024 Fiscal Year,
    released earlier this year, says the service expects to have 293 vessels
    in its battle force in the upcoming fiscal cycle (which starts on
    October 1, 2023). That same document says that it could have as many as
    320 or as few as 311 battle force vessels by Fiscal Year 2035 depending
    on what courses of action are pursued.

    These discrepancies are relatively minor and do not change the fact that
    there is clearly a major and widening gap in battle force sizes between
    China and the United States. Still, they do highlight the complexities
    of comparative counting of naval inventories, which change regularly as
    older ships are decommissioned and new ones are brought into service, especially based on publicly available information. Beyond that, it is important to point out that a realistic accounting of China's naval
    forces is not limited to the PLAN.

    In fact, last year, the Pentagon noted that the PLAN's battle force
    inventory had actually shrunk in 2021, but that this was due to the fact
    that 22 Type 056 corvettes had been transferred to the country's Coast
    Guard. These are 1,500-ton-displacement warships that, at least in PLAN service, had been armed with anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles,
    among other weapons. That kind of armament is atypical of vessels in
    service with most other coast guards around the world, including the
    U.S. Coast Guard.

    A Type 056 corvette in PLAN service in 2013. This ship has since been transferred to the Chinese Coast Guard. <em>樱井千一 via Wikimedia</em>
    A Type 056 corvette in PLAN service in 2013. This ship has since been transferred to the Chinese Coast Guard. 樱井千一 via Wikimedia
    A true discussion of China's current and future naval capacity would
    have to include at least some ships from its Coast Guard and a number of
    other nominally civilian maritime security agencies, as well as the
    country's substantial maritime militia.

    An unclassified graphic ONI published in 2022 showing the full breadth
    of Chinese 'naval' forces beyond just the PLAN.
    An unclassified graphic ONI published in 2022 showing the full breadth
    of Chinese 'naval' forces beyond just the PLAN.
    The U.S. military has made its own moves in this regard in recent years.
    The U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, and U.S. Coast Guard notably put out a
    tri-service "naval forces" white paper in 2020. Since then, there has
    been a clear push to increase routine Coast Guard maritime operations
    abroad together with the Navy and independently. This has included
    sending Coast Guard ships to patrol in areas of the Pacific where China
    has extensive and largely unrecognized territorial claims, like the
    South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

    None of this necessarily changes the overall direction of the trend
    line. U.S. military officials, members of Congress, and naval experts
    have all been drawing attention to the widening gap in total size
    between the U.S. Navy and the PLAN, as well as concerns about
    shipbuilding capacity, for years now.

    "They have 13 shipyards, in some cases their shipyard has more capacity
    – one shipyard has more capacity than all of our shipyards combined," Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro told members of Congress at a
    hearing in February. "That presents a real threat."

    Overall shipyard capacity has a massive impact on sustaining ships. The
    ONI slide now circulating online includes a note that "50+ dry docks can physically accommodate an aircraft carrier." The PLAN is working hard to increase the size of its carrier fleets and this also reflects yards
    that could be used to conduct work on other larger surface ships and submarines.


    Shipyard capacity for sustainment of existing fleets is also something
    that has been a subject of great concern in the United States for some
    time now. After decades of cutting back on spending, the U.S. Navy has
    been trying to explore ways to alleviate those issues, including by
    modernizing its own remaining shipyards and expanding its use of
    commercial yards to conduct various types of often sensitive work.
    Reflecting the trend of shipbuilding capacity increasingly being found
    outside of the United States, the latter category could eventually
    include more foreign-owned and operated yards, including ones in Japan, too.


    Shipbuilding is also a complex and costly affair that requires large
    amounts of skilled labor and resources, which can take significant time
    to source. Delays or other hiccups in shipbuilding, as well as repair
    and overhaul work that requires shipyard capacity, can easily cascade.
    This reality has manifested itself to an especially extreme degree for
    the U.S. Navy when it comes to submarine maintenance.

    Rear Adm. Jonathan Rucker, the Navy's Program Executive officer for
    Attack Submarines, told reporters in November 2022 on the sidelines of
    the Naval Submarine League’s annual conference that 18 of the service's
    50 attack submarines of all classes were undergoing or awaiting
    maintenance at that time. This is significantly higher than the
    service's target of having no more than 20 percent of all attack
    submarines down for maintenance at a time.

    The Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Boise, which was first
    commissioned in 1992, has become an unfortunate poster child for these
    issues. Boise has been sitting pierside since 2017 and when it hopefully returns to active duty next year it will have spent around 20 percent of
    its entire career idle awaiting maintenance.

    The <em>Los Angeles</em> class attack submarine USS <em>Boise</em>. <em>USN</em>
    The Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Boise. USN
    In addition, this reality has prompted major concerns with regard to the
    U.S. Navy's capacity, or lack thereof, to repair battle-damaged ships
    and get them back into service relatively rapidly in a major future
    conflict. The multi-day fire that gutted the Wasp class amphibious
    assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard while it was in port undergoing
    maintenance in 2020 reinvigorated discussions about the service's
    limited capacity to process damaged ships in an actual crisis. This has
    only been magnified by the increasing possibility of a major conflict in
    the Pacific.

    "The Navy has not needed to triage and repair multiple battle-damaged
    ships in quick succession since World War II," the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, said in a report published in 2021. “After the end of the Cold War, the Navy divested
    many of its wartime ship repair capabilities, and its ship maintenance capabilities have evolved to focus largely on supporting peacetime
    maintenance needs."

    "However, the rise of 21st century adversaries," like China, "capable of producing high-end threats in warfare – referred to as great power competitors – revives the need for the Navy to reexamine its battle
    damage repair capability to ensure it is ready for potential conflict,"
    the 2021 GAO report added.

    A flow chart from GAO's 2021 report on US Navy capacity to triage and
    repair significant numbers of battle-damaged ships.
    A flow chart from GAO's 2021 report on US Navy capacity to triage and
    repair significant numbers of battle-damaged ships.
    In February, Navy Secretary Del Toro highlighted how the differences
    between a democratic United States and a totalitarian China come into
    play in this part of the equation.

    “[W]hen you have unemployment at less than 4%, it makes it a real
    challenge whether you’re trying to find workers for a restaurant or
    you’re trying to find workers for a shipyard,” he explained. "They’re a communist country, they don’t have rules by which they abide by."

    "They use slave labor in building their ships, right,” Del Toro also asserted. "That’s not the way we should do business ever, but that’s
    what we’re up against so it does present a significant advantage."

    Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro speaks at an event in New York in
    May 2023. <em>USN</em>
    Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro speaks at an event in New York in
    May 2023. USN
    As a result, the U.S. Navy has often called into question the basic
    viability of trying to maintain parity with China on a quantitative
    level. The service's senior leadership has often argued against focusing
    solely on total numbers and for pursuing advanced and novel
    capabilities, including hypersonic weapons and uncrewed surface and
    underwater vessels, which will allow it to keep a qualitative edge.

    "They [the PLAN] got a larger fleet now so they’re deploying that fleet globally,” Navy Secretary Del Toro said at the hearing in February. "We
    do need a larger Navy, we do need more ships in the future, more modern
    ships in the future, in particular, that can meet that threat."

    "For us to pivot, under the budget line that we have right now, to pivot
    to a more lethal force, we need to give up some stuff," Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Gilday, the Navy's top officer, told
    reporters in Febraury 2022. "And you can’t just look at it through the
    lens of surface VLS [vertical launch system] tubes."

    Gilday was responding to a question about the U.S. Navy's plans to
    decommission its Ticonderoga class cruisers, each of which has 122 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells that can be loaded with various
    missiles. The ships typically carry a large load of Tomahawk land attack
    cruise missiles and represent a significant portion of the service's
    current surface-to-surface strike capacity.


    All of this of course comes amid concerns about China's rising military capacity and capabilities, writ large, particularly within the context
    of a potential future intervention against Taiwan. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) could feel
    that is capable of succeeding in such a major operation by 2027, if not
    sooner. Of course, those same officials routinely stress that this does
    not mean that the government in Beijing is actively planning to act on
    any particular timeline.

    Though The War Zone has not yet been able to confirm this, the
    shipbuilding slide appears to be from a larger ONI briefing intended for members of Congress that calls for more actively challenging Chinese
    ambitions over Taiwan and elsewhere. The briefing in question at least
    contains the same details about China's control of worldwide commercial shipbuilding and the number of drydocks it has that can fit an aircraft
    carrier as the unclassified slide that has been circulating online,
    according to a report last week from Air & Space Forces Magazine.

    "'The survival of Taiwan’s democracy is a critical geostrategic issue
    that carries long-term consequences for China, the U.S., and the broader international community,' the ONI said, but 'the China problem is not
    all about Taiwan,' noting that all of China’s neighbors, both on land
    and sea, are facing military, economic and diplomatic pressures from
    Beijing which would be extremely hard to hold at bay individually," Air
    & Space Forces Magazine reported after obtaining a copy of this larger briefing. It "noted ten geographic areas where China is actively
    challenging borders and territory, and it is increasingly characterizing
    itself as an 'arctic nation' with rights to exploit resources in that area."

    A trio of Chinese warships are seen from the deck of a US Coast Guard
    ship shadowing them near Alaska's Aleutian Islands as they headed north
    toward the Arctic Region in 2021. <em>USCG</em>
    A trio of Chinese warships are seen from the deck of a US Coast Guard
    ship shadowing them near Alaska's Aleutian Islands as they headed north
    toward the Arctic Region in 2021. USCG
    The briefing also reportedly at least contains the same details about
    China controlling 40 percent of worldwide commercial shipbuilding and
    having 50 drydocks big enough to fit an aircraft carrier as the
    unclassified slide that has been circulating online.

    It also warns against China's use of "espionage, coercion, pressure, subversion, and disinformation" to "shape the international system" and otherwise gain global leverage, that report says.

    “We are engaged in an international struggle between competing visions,"
    the briefing, which carries the signature of ONI head Rear Adm. Mike
    Studemans, adds, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. "China is
    executing a grand strategy, and has been unified in pursuing it
    comprehensively and aggressively for many years."

    When it comes to the Navy, in particular, ONI is clearly sounding the
    alarm anew that the startling disparity, which is still rapidly growing,
    in total fleet sizes and shipbuilding capacity between it and the PLAN
    is a major concern when it comes to the service's ability to help
    challenge the Chinese government's global ambitions.

    Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a425couple@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 13 09:35:14 2023
    XPost: sci.military.naval, soc.history.war.misc, alt.economics
    XPost: seattle.politics

    On 7/13/23 09:28, a425couple wrote:
    Best to go to the citation, multiple graphics and videos.

    from https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity

    Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns Of China’s 200 Times Greater
    Shipbuilding Capacity
    The Office of Naval Intelligence is sounding the alarm about the huge
    gap in U.S. and Chinese shipbuilding capacity and its implications.


    Interesting comments include

    friendlyneighbourhoodcanadian
    1 day ago

    Two big questions in my mind:

    1) What are the quality of the ships they build? It would be extremely
    on brand for Communists to build an awful lot of awful products. I don't
    mean the on-paper quality, I'm sure the specs as written/imagined are
    pretty impressive, but the actual final-build quality - and how honestly
    are they assessing that quality? Is it a "hey, look it floats perfectly
    well on calm seas!" or do they conduct proper shock and other
    "worst-case scenario" testing?

    2) What is the trained-crew to built ship ratio? I look at that number
    of ships the same way I look at the ghost apartment complexes that
    popped up all over the CCP mainland as they built their real estate
    bubble. Housing for millions that either sits empty or are unfinished
    husks that weren't sold and remains therefore unfinished. It seems to me
    that ships aren't rifles - if you have a stockpile of rifles and no
    trained soldiers to use them, you can still just put them in the hands
    of conscripts and say "loud end toward enemy" and you'll get some
    utility out of it. You can't exactly take some conscript farmers who
    have never seen the ocean, plop them on a new ship and expect to get any functionality out of that vessel.

    Manufacturing remains a CCP strength (at least on the surface); the
    quality of their personnel and training programs remains a weakness. I
    don't find these numbers as intimidating - the numbers of their
    ballistic missiles are more concerning IMO.


    SaigonDesign
    1 day ago

    Quantity has a quality all its own. The Chinese can throw large amounts
    of labor into building and manning their ships.

    Their ships are also much more heavily armed than most of their American counterparts (aircraft carriers notwithstanding). Their corvettes,
    destroyers, and even their new cruisers carry enough missiles to
    oversaturate American naval defense systems.

    The USN needs a total overhaul on how they manage their sailors and shipbuilding. They don't have enough sailors to man the ships they have
    now, their ships (and shipyards) are falling apart due to lack of
    maintenance and investment (and a reliance on contractors), and they
    lack enough firepower (both offensive and defensive) to fight off a
    major surface action.

    The world hasn't seen a major surface action since WW2, and sadly the
    USN seems to think that will be the case moving forward.


    GintaPPE1000
    1 day ago

    1) We don’t know what China’s QA processes look like. But I would argue
    it doesn’t matter: given the work their yards do for the commercial
    sector, it’s certainly dangerous to assume they can’t either build
    quality ships or honestly audit themselves. We’d be fools to rely on
    that to save us.

    On th...
    On the subject of “operational verification” like shock tests, the PLAN, like the rest of the Chinese military, has a known experience and
    institutional knowledge shortfall, and that impacts how well they can
    assess their equipment too. It’s worth noting they’re not afraid to publicly disclose this issue, and the need to fix it. It is, however,
    also worth pointing out that every navy has this issue, even the USN.

    2) Firstly, the housing thing is because the Chinese stock market is
    worthless due to government meddling. So China uses real estate as its alternative. Not saying it isn’t a bubble (stocks can be too), but
    empty buildings doesn’t mean an unhealthy market when their market is different from ours.

    Secondly, the PLA has been an all-volunteer force since the 1980s. So
    they do have a robust training pipeline. However, as I said above the
    PLA has admitted they’re lacking in both specialized knowledge and
    knowledge retention. A lot of that is down to their modernization being
    so fast they just haven’t had much time to train on their new gear, but
    there are some deeper issues like lacking an NCO corps.

    1 reply

    Show 1 more reply


    KinjaRefugee
    1 day ago

    “[W]hen you have unemployment at less than 4%, it makes it a real
    challenge whether you’re trying to find workers for a restaurant or
    you’re trying to find workers for a shipyard,”

    That also applies to crewing the ships too. Nevermind the unemployment
    rate. They have 4x our population.

    It's a numbers game and they have more.

    We will never win on numbers. What we build has to be better. We need
    allies and economics. Fighting the Chinese like the old time boxers
    trading blows to the face is a losing strategy.

    Maybe too this will finally kill that GD LCS. Quit putting capacity and
    money into building garbage. If they're worried about a lack of Ticos,
    build more with more efficient plants and systems.


    Lockmart
    1 day ago

    I’m not worried about this nearly as much as A2/AD systems precisely for
    one of the reasons you mention. Shipbuilding is overwhelming dominated
    by 3 countries, China, Korea, and Japan, with the latter two combined
    having about the same market share as the first in terms of
    displacement. Everyone el...

    See more

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)