The US builds 2 nuclear attack submarines per year. China might have already increased production to 2.7 per year, and judging by the size of the new assembly halls at their Huludao factory, they might soon be building 5 per year or even more, depending on how much factory capacity they want to dedicate to SSBNs instead
The US builds about 156 F-35 single-engine stealth fighters per year, of which about 90 are intended for the US and the rest are for export. China builds about 100 heavy twin-engine J-20 stealth fighters per year and they are still expanding the factory at Chengdu that produces them
The US produces 6 E-2D Hawkeye AEW&C per year and no big ones (yet). It's uncertain how many KJ-500 AEW&C China produces however they're definitely producing a lot, there are a lot visible at the Shaanxi factory, and they're bigger than E-2D
According to latest SIPRI figures, China spends $292B on the military per year and the US spends $877B. Is the US allocating its money optimally? It seems to me these might be some of the most important weapons, should the US focus more on those?
China production numbers from SDF and picrel
US production numbers from here
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/09/more-f-35-delivery-delays-likely-as-lockheeds-tech-update-slips-to-2024/
https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/E-2D-Advanced-Hawkeye-multi-year-procurement-contract-awarded/Wed-04102019-1645
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23988146/navy-virginia-class-submarine-program-and-aukus-submarine-proposal-background-and-issues-for-congress-sept-11-2023.pdf (page 9)
The problem is made kinda worse by how the US builds subs and AEW&C to a large extent just to replace old ones, while China's are almost pure additions
Additions eventually need replacing anon.
>combat logistics force from 21 to 43
>support vessels from 36 to 52
b-but muh submarines
here's the secret: when your stuff actually works, you don't need as much.
>twin-engine J-20 stealth fighters per year
Ay lmao no, chinks have a stable production rate of 25-30 per year. Including all versions of the J-20, it's probable that China will convert the early J-20 into "JH-20" because they're that good as figther compared to late B's and the soon to enter in service J-20C.
>chinks have a stable production rate of 25-30 per year.
What makes you say that? The PLA-watchers at SDF all say ~100 annually
Also, it can be seen on Google Earth that they're expanding the Chengdu factory, so it seems unlikely that J-20 production mate would be stable
You see? you're conflating future with present. Implying that that "factory expansion" would be for the J-20. Now, what are you implying? China intend to make 2-300 J20 a year after that expansion?
The factory expansions are recent and still ongoing. A large complex in the northwest part was finished during 2022, and it seems unlikely it would already be fully tooled and operational yet. They seem to be clearing space for another expansion to the west
J-20 is the Chengdu factory's most important product and one of the most important weapons in China's arsenal, it seems very likely the expansion would be for it
The SDF people are thinking production could reach maybe 150-200 per year
>J20 stealth fightersa
they're not stealth fighters, they're low observable at best
again chang, no matter how many times you say something false, it doesn't make it more true.
the J-20 is not a stealth fighter and would get destroyed by any F35.
so the US is building about as much or 1/3 more than China plus they have been for 30+ years and now you ask if its enough?
is your IQ gaza level?
Shhhhh all the smart ones move to the West/Russia/Japan/Korea. The dumb ones stay in China and work slave wages at factories, state engineering firms, or troll farms.
>and now you ask if its enough?
I guess it depends on what US ambitions are in terms of future relative military strength
Yeah except chink submarines are worse than 1980s Soviet submarines.
China's demographics are going to be horrible in 20-30 years
American demographics are going to be even worse though...
While shit, the problem PLAN poses is that Chinamen cut corners building things in general with an eye to using them-- that said, they might be shitting out diesel powered shitboxes with an aim to oblige an arms race in which the US just burns cash chasing nominal parity (which was shitbox bait to begin with).
Much worse if they fuck around and actually find out they're worse than the Russians.
Qualitatively yes. But that's the tradeoff.
I like how the chink OP thinks he's fooling anyone with his 'subtle' bragging.
The American UUV fleet is about 100x of China's, so much so that all new submarine tech incorporates them at a basic level. China has no equivalent to it, and not in mass production as the US has. And the US is even commercializing it with the big push for offshore wind and offshore mining. The US will literally have a completely full auto navy, or at least a submarine navy capable of sinking anything threatening the manned surface ships, by 2035. Full auto commercial shipping is around the corner and is enabled by this. China has zero response to it other than soviet era tech and running into fishing boats.
Begone, Noodle Poster.
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门
Is the US building too few weapons for low-end warfare?
>2023-11-04 | S Mercogliano / Campbell U | REPEL BOARDERS! PROTESTORS BOARD MV CAPE ORLANDO
Today, protesters demonstrated against the sailing of the US Ready Reserve Force roll-on/roll-off vessel MV Cape Orlando. The ship was activated by the Dept of Defense. The protesters believed the ship was going to transport military equipment from Tacoma, Washington to Israel. The pro-Palestinian protesters broke through the fence and several boarded the ship.
The US Coast Guard arrested four and cleared the ship to depart and it is on the way to Tacoma. It is not clear what Cape Orlando's mission is as seven other RRF ships are active conducting exercises and repositioning military units and equipment.
[1]: https://youtu.be/xzWA9Kcyn7M
What costly weapons do you need for riot control?
sensitivity-trained water cannons
>captcha: xwavy
How many billions do they cost per unit, approximately?
oh, i should hope several
What did he mean by this. You can't just shoot protestors in civilized countries no matter how retarded they are.
Yeah, they were just unarmed dweebs. If they weren't trying to harm the crew and were just being really annoying there's no reason to kill them.
well, orbital bombardment is clearly no good for anti-piracy (area of effect too great) and laser weapons greatly reduce your time on station from their power draw. what do you propose?
The US currently has 70 subs of various categories and is building at a rate of 2-3 per year (last year we laid down 2 virginia's and 1 columbia, this year is only 1 virginia so far but the 2 virginias last year came in November/December so we could get another) ) and bare in mind this is the dates the Keel's are laid down now when acquisition starts.
China has from what i can tell
12 nuclear subs (+3 more in reserve) and 45 conventional subs (+2 in fitting out and 10 in reserve)
China's subs are also pretty damned small with Block 5 Virginia's being the same size as their ballistic nuclear subs. And the Columbia class subs being about double the weight of their ballistic subs.
The US certainly has a larger present inventory due to accumulating over ~35 years. However, I'm talking about the construction rate. China will probably create new sub designs, so it seems dangerous to count on one American sub being worth more than one Chinese sub, beyond the immediate near term
The US inventory also means that 2 SS(G)N and 1 SSBN is what the US needs to build just to approximately maintain the current level (it isn't enough to maintain hull count in the near term due to a mass LA/Ohio SSGN retirement wave, there'll still be a dip around FY2029)
So, do you think the US needs to spend to increase the SS(G)N production rate?
Unmanned subs are likely to start taking over, I unironically see these manned Chinese subs as obsolete unless they hold nukes.
Just remembered that a Type 093 was lost in the Yellow Sea not long ago so maybe just 11 nuclear subs.
why are all of your threads like this?
also china, at it's current build rate and retirement rate won't match current US tonnage until 2075.
B-but anon they'll have more ships!
no don't ask what kind of ships they are!
>tonnage
I was talking about SS(G)Ns, stealth fighters and AEW&C because I thought those most relevant for a hypothetical high-end US-China conflict below the level of a nuclear exchange. I don't really care about LHDs, LPDs, ROROs and such for this discussion, and CV/CVNs are debatable. It seems to me that dropping orbital launch costs and massive satellite constellations might make surface warships in general of questionable utility in a high-end war in the near future
Although, do you have a link or explanation for that 2075 calculation?
>I was talking about SS(G)Ns
you make the exact same thread every fucking weekend. who do you think you're fooling? this is literally the most you have ever bothered to change it up.
so why are all of your threads like this? it's clear you don't want any actual discussion, your threads are constantly thinly veiled concerntrolling or just outright IMPLESSIVE nonsense.
>Although, do you have a link or explanation for that 2075 calculation?
for someone who posts has posted this exact same thread hundreds of times i'm shocked you're this ignorant on the topic. I will only illuminate you if you finally answer my question:
why are all of your threads like this?
> this is literally the most you have ever bothered to change it up.
I haven't posted a thread on this board for several months, so the fact that I'm not the same person might be the reason for it appearing "changed up"
>I haven't posted a thread on this board for several months
i don't know why i even gave you the benefit of the doubt for once. you're so far gone you'll never understand why everybody else shitposts your threads
not that guy but China's tonnage is still pretty abysmal and they are retiring a lot of their older ships because they are modded soviet designs rather than domestic ones.
Of their fleet they've got 10 active Improved Kilo subs, 2 Kuznestov carriers, 4 Sovremeny destroyers, I think that's it.... beyond some logistics/landing ships.
someone will have to find the US force 2050 image that was floating around from the thread about US naval procurement to see what we have by then but i mean China is way behind currently.
Well, yes. China doesn't have a large accumulated inventory and what they have been accumulating until recently hasn't of very good quality. I'm not disputing that. I'm looking at the construction rate ITT because it has implications for the future. And it's not just a question of "when or whether might China surpass the US", it also matters how close they'll get and when
Hasn't the Shandong been designed to use indigenous subsystems and parts?
I think they recently upgraded the Sovremennys with domestic weapons so it seems unlikely they intend to retire them anytime soon
Well it's like that person said, it'll take China till 2075 to match the US's tonnage. In order to match the US's tonnage they'll need to be producing double the number of ships we are at minimum without retiring older ones.
Since 2010 China has commissioned:
4 Type 094/094A subs (11k tons each)
1 Type 032 sub (6.6k tons)
4 Type 093A subs (6.1k tons each)
17 Type 039A/B/C subs (3.6k tons each)
Total sub tonnage: 136.2k tons
17 Virginia class subs (7.9k tons each)
Total sub tonnage: 134.2k tons
Carriers:
2 Kuznestov's (60-70k tons lets say 130k tons total)
1 Fujian 80k tons
Total: 210k tons
1 Gerald R Ford (100k tons
Total: 100k tons
Destroyers:
8 Renhai (13k tons each)
25 Luyang 3 (7.5k tons each)
4 Luyang 2 (7k tons each)
Total: 216k tons
2 Zumwalts (15.6k tons each)
15 Arleigh Burkes (9.3k each)
Total: 170.7k tons
Frigates:
26 Jiangkai 2 (4.1k tons each)
Total: 106.6k tons
8 Freedom class (3.5k tons each)
15 Independence Class (2.5k tons each)
Total: 65.5k tons
Corvettes:
72 Typge 56 (1.5k tons each)
Total: 108k tons
Amphibious warfare:
3 Type 075 (40k tons each)
7 Type 071 (25k tons each)
6 Type 072 (4.8k tons each)
Total: 323.8k tons
2 America Class (45k tons each)
7 San Antonio's (25k tons each)
3 Lewis B Puller (90k tons each)
Total: 535k tons
Overall total:
China: 993.8k tons
US: 1005.2k tons
The US builds mainly to replace though.
China retires some older ships, however they were so garbage they might not have existed anyway
I'd like to see China try and support that many subs with a quarter of the USA economy.
The cope is that they're made out of chinesium and American steel folded twenty billion times is superior and we have nothing to worry about. Also, if you treat the subject with any degree of severity without sucking US dick, you're a vile chicom shill. Really OP, you should know by now that with how fragile you're average /k/tard is you can't have a frank conversation about these topics.
>gets made fun of for spamming the EXACT SAME thread every week
>instantly starts samefagging when desired effect isn't reached.
no bonus today chang, pack it up and try again next time.
lol, sour grapes.
I'm still waiting for him to post that same fucking photo of a USN destroyer at sea compared to a PLAN destroyer that's still off the coast of China.
Quality over quantity
You don't understand how building vs maintaining a military works. It's always cheaper to build a military. Maintaining it at that size for a long time is what's expensive. And when you can't afford the maintenance, you are forced to sell off or put things into long term storage where they slowly rot (see: USSR and Russia)
Impressive. I am John Dave from Massachusetts Province and I am very demoralized. We should stop provoking the Chinese dragon and surrender the rebellious Taiwan province to them.
If your shit so good the competition isn't even batting in the same league what does it matter if you aren't producing the same amount.
We're already ahead of Russia and China. Even when China launched its "5th gen" fighter first, we've already passed them then shit on their weapons program, then shit on their EW with our standard.
>Is the US allocating its money optimally?
You should know better than to ask.
The difference between US and Chinese subs is that US subs are designed to eventually return to the surface.