This sounds good on paper but the asian efficiencies aren't a secret. They have the trained workforces and we don't. It's true across the construction space. High speed rail, chip faabs, etc. We offshored all the manufacturing and are now multiple generations removed from having enough institutional knowledge in our workforce. It will similarly take many years (and a lot of money) to build this capacity back up.
It is not just about the workforce. I believe the US has enough skilled labor to match the Chinese and Koreans, but the main issue is the industrial ecosystem. There are a lot components that go into shipbuilding, and it wouldn't do you much good if your skilled labor still has to import chips and other important components all the way from Taiwan, and other Asian countries.
This workforce is also really cheap because all the salaries as well as the cost of living in the country are much lower than even the cheapest US states not to speak of the East and West Coasts where the shipyards are located. Moreover, Koreans, like Japanese and Taiwanese, live in an overtime culture (until 2018 they worked 52-h weeks instead of 40-h). There is no way the US can copy that, hence no way American shipbuilders are competitive in commercial shipbuilding, therefore not much improvement is possible in military shipbuilding as well (those are coupled)
It's not fixable might as well just burn the money, modern "Stock - Buy back" America is incapable of conducting long term industrial projects any attempt inevitably devolves into an MBA infused gift of contractors , outsourcing, downsizing etc.... see Boeing and Intel. The trend started in the 80's.
@@TheRadioAteMyTVyou threw them away to your corporate overlords and those corporate overlords then sent it to China/Asia. US has lost its skills and craftsmanship. Millennials and GenZ won’t do this heavy dirty works 😅
They’re building Arleigh Burkes at a third of the cost, and in a fraction of the time it takes the U.S. to build one. U.S. shipyards have become a laughingstock
@@Art-is-craft Junk? You mean like the Freedom, Independence, and Zumwalt classes? Chinas navy is improving with every ship they build. Its a real issue.
@@Felix0587 Painting a vessel green or grey does not make it capable of naval warfare. Throwing out numbers does mean anything. Germany had 1200 U-boats in WW2 and still did not dominate the Atlantic.
It’s actually infuriating how much politicians laughed off anyone not acting like peer and near peer conflicts would never be a thing again after the Cold War.
The point does still still the same however, pure numbers of ships isn't relevant, tonnage is most often used as the preferred measurement for a reason, china still cant compare to the dozen super carriers the US has
That would undermine US workers and would give South Korea to much politcal leverage over the US. The military politcal leverage game goes both ways. I build your navies I own you.
@@OGUNite I am surprised that the US shipyards haven't charged the DOD $1.6B for a new Burke class ship, then outsource the contracts to South Korea for $600M and pocket $1B difference........
The US should and could be building those ships domestically. RoK didn’t build them at all before the 1970s and only started because of an aggressive industrialization drive. The US can re-industrialize if we can get our policy-making away from big pockets.
No, you cannot. That is like South Korea saying that they can take over as the tech capital of the world away from the United States. Complete nonsense.
@@recon_ron7746 living in fear that "our country will be invaded" is such a little girl excuse to fund the military billions whilst people are starving.
As opposed to real issues like police violence, highest incarceration rates, rising homelessness, a drug epidemic, falling life expectancy, falling real wages etc?
I worked for a company that had government contracts for various electronic parts. They were the only US based company that made these parts so could charge outrageous prices for subpar products. Military/Medical electronic component specs was
Trade protection will only make the protected more lazy and obese. This is especially true for domestic military products, which has become a huge corruption chain.
An important note to make. The number of battle force ships it’s important, quite important in fact, but it does not tell the whole story. The tonnage of the US Navy is double that of China, and the number of Chinese warships that match American ones is currently only a few dozen. This doesn’t mean China can or isn’t catching up, though. Its tonnage added per year equate to an entire French Navy, so this is still an important issue to tackle.
That was the IJN's strategy in WW2. a few big heavy capital ships. But no capacity to replace them. The 6 carriers and Yamato once sunk, was not replaced.
The tonnage lead is help up by very few 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers that are looking increasingly obsolete. China already posesses hypersonic missiles that are capable of sinking a Nimitz Class carrier.
the difference is not as significant as you think. chinese naval policy is focused on regional dominance and littoral warfare, not playing global policeman. US has significantly more tonnage, yes, but it is distributed across the globe in many places simultaneously. china has plans to enlarge to 6 aircraft carriers, and currently has 3+3 LHDs. China does not need too many vessels when they have extremely potent ASM capabilities. the issue is that US naval dominance in the pacific is being challenged... US only has 1 active CSG in the region currently, and 2 other ARGs... this force cannot match that of the chinese navy
@@bxndaries it's not really littoral anymore. Save for attack boats and corvettes (most of the latter have been transfered to the coast guard), the PLAN is a USN analogue through and through. Carriers, destroyers, AORs, etc.
Korea has no reason to build shipbuilding yard in the US. America has no workers and the cost is very high. Let South Korea make American warship. America did nothing to rebuild its own shipbuilding industry. It will be minus points to Korea if they move shipbuilding yards to the US. Furthermore, shipbuilding industry is strategically very important for Korea. Do not expect Korea to move their industry to the US. Its not yours. Will u agree if Korea force the US to move their all factories to Korea? To build Korea great again? Lol
Hanhwa shipbuilding has already boutght American shipyards. They are not planning to "move" shipbuilding to the US-it's an expansion of operations. It's a win-win for bout Korean companies(who can get contracts for US naval ships) and the US(who gets ships built with US labor).
@@가니메데 Hanhwa bought Philadelphia Shipyards, which has been operating at a loss for quite a long time. It's not a clear-cut win-win situation because while they can now earn US navy contracts, this means that Hanhwa is still likely building them at a loss.
Well, in that case, I hope Hanhwa has plans to turn a profit. I would imagine they have one, and even if they don't, for the short term Hanhwa's profits from other contracts should be more than enough to cover losses. It's been a fairly good year for the Korean shipbuilding industry so far.
Here are some more facts they leave out. The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million (U.S.) tons of ships in its fleet, nearly twice the size of China’s combined fleets of just over 2 million tons. While I believe we should probably repeal that 1965 protectionist law, (then buy frigates and Corvettes and destroyers from South Korea spending the money on outfitting them with better electronics / weapons and submarines from Sweden) this is a bit alarmist but all the facts should be known. For the record the US should be a little bit alarmed.
the whole world should be alarmed: the global standard currency for oil is the us dollar. why? not only because the us has one of the largest reserves--if not the largest, but because its military is the only one that is truly "global". what would happen if china closes the gap? this is scary for many reasons, and has consequences that trickle outside of just potential armed conflicts.
In any combat-based situation, shipyards far away from the mainland are fragile and vulnerable to attack, and this approach will not increase American employment. The American people expect jobs and actions like this mean nothing to American manufacturing!
I guess the US should focus on teaching trades again and stop telling folks to get useless college degree's and watching the sheep spend/borrow $150k or more to get gender studies degree's. Probably should start supporting applicable trades and pay living wages to make it happen.
We are talking about industrial capacity to produce ships... not tonnage... what it means if we lag behind in military industrial capacity is that the Chinese can build, refit, and repair way faster than we can. At that point tonnage doesn’t matter since they can build literally more, faster, heavier.
Oh boy we got a NPC here guys........experience is not inherited.......there is no 'massive' technology advantage - the US navy has no defense against hypersonic missiles lol And tonnage does not matter once a a ship is hit by a salvo of Hypersonic missiles. The USS ford crew is short by 500 sailors.....no one wants to join your military 🤣🤣
@@adnausi "Tonnage doesnt matter" do you even know what tonnage means? Tonnage = ability to withstand damage, i.e not needing dry-dock repairs. The Chinese have smaller, weaker vessels that will be torn apart and sit in dry dock.
@@bulatog380 Wait, so having our most popular sport be something that literally damaged the brains of our youth is a bad idea? Who would have guessed that.
Sorry one more thing, we clearly should be heavily investing into unmanned submarine and drone technology. The mass of the water is an extra layer of armor, and in the saturated air space of a future war, having an ocean above you is highly valuable. Not having the humans on board means the ship can conserve space, energy, be a smaller target, but still get orders from command.
We already are, google Anduril. They are a defense company that is working hard at high volume, low cost weapons with god-like software. America isn't losing its place as the monopoly on violence anytime soon.
I remember in a recent wargame of china invading taiwan we lose like hundreds of aircraft on the ground and 1-2 carriers from chinese missile strikes. Our submarines did far better being able to sink much of the invasion fleet in the taiwan straight. Also Japan and S. Korea both field modern attack submarines. I have questions about unmanned systems like the Manta Ray in terms of capabilities and how it would realistically perform in a hot war but it is definitely an interesting concept.
I'm pretty sure labor costs are lower in states like South Carolina and U.S. territories such as American Samoa that can be utilized to build Navy Ships.
Change the 1965 protection law so US can buy hulls (and non-critical components) built to their specification from trusted allies. Then bring the ships to American yards and fit it out with the latest and greatest radars, sensors, and weapons. This should save costs, build up domestic industry and help with employment while at the same time cut construction time and prevent unwanted top secret tech from being copied. In the long run the US may even be able to build ships without relying on foreign yards.
Why do they never differentiate types of vessels and tonnage. Purposefully ignoring the context of littoral vs blue water, and without mentioning tonnage, you’re willfully misleading the public towards alarmist conclusions.
Well said! Well I believe that we should be a little bit alarmed the all the facts need to be put out there. For proper comparison The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million (U.S.) tons of ships in its fleet, nearly twice the size of China’s combined fleets of just over 2 million tons.
Yea exactly! I keep hearing talk about ship count but nobody talks about tonnage. Who cares if the PRoC builds a bunch of tiny boats to patrol their coastline?
exactly! sounds like alarmism to let the public think we should dump more money into military again. However, we have 11 aircraft carriers whereas china only have 2 carriers. That's a significant difference already.
Korea are already making selling their K9 and K2 to many countries, and they are one of the efficient and reliable products that are out there right now. so i wouldn't compare elantra to those
Well they are currently legally different companies, both are offsprings of the former Hyundai group (which imploded in the early 2000s). But there might have been a time period where the same company was indeed building both cars and warships.
A few corrections: China has 3 liquid-powered carriers, not coal. The PLAN isn't interested in patrolling shipping lanes, unlike the US Navy, hence the need for nuclear carriers. The PLAN has also shied away from building a large fleet of carriers, given their vulnerability and large number of assets they consume - escort ships, subs and aircraft. Though, it's observed they see owning a nuclear-carrier as a way of showcasing themselves as a superpower. China has already made the US carrier groups inert by developing vast arsenals of missiles that can keep US carriers out of aircraft range of the Chinese coast. Leaving them exposed to the growing threat of China's submarines.
Today's navy scale only proves that US had larger construction ability/ship-industry than China in 1990s. But today's construction ablility predicts the NAVY scale in the 20 years.
@@HexaSquirrel haha that’s what we make fun of the thick black smoke from chimney during sea test😬thanks for clarifying though US and China navy won’t have a fight in the future, just deterring each other. China wants US to get out of our doorway, and US want China just stay in our backyard. If us two strongest powers clash together, that might be the end of the world. Luckily we both have enough patience and wisdom to handle any situation.
The main bottle neck is with equipments rather than hulls. The Korean shipyard import much of the key equipments which is still controlled by US. So the bottleneck and over budget is still at US suppliers
@@jogana6909 Mostly radars, missiles, vls, central command systems, gas turbines, drive trains, etc. These are the core of a warship and what makes them effective, and they are almost all controlled by US suppliers. When warships are maintained, refurbished or repaired, these are almost always the most important and crucial parts. For a logistical system with the Korean ship builders in the loop, there is a lot of physical and legal barriers in supplying these systems to Korea and train their personnel to the point that they can maintain and repair them.
China has 739 vessels in its navy, while the US has only 472. However, the US has 3,415,893 tons of ships, while China only has 708,886 tons. That makes the American navy almost five times larger. Furthermore, the vast majority of China's navy consists of short ranged coastal ships, whereas America's navy is worldwide in its reach. Comparing the two navies is like comparing apple to oranges, although apples to grapes might be a better comparison.
that's data from 2014 lol...a decade of rampant Chinese shipbuilding ago. Today, China is over 2,000,000 while the U.S is 4,500,000. In 10 years they went from 5x large to a little over 2x. The U.S navy isn't used to facing an adversary that is even this close at all, let alone one with who threatens to catch up. U.S Navy can't even handle Houthi rebels atm. Another issue is exactly what you mentioned: China is dominating the Taiwan Straight, South China Sea and relevant seas near them with ships while U.S commitments are spread globally. That's not a great look in preparation for potential scenarios. Also worth noting ships are going out of commission because recruiting and staff are low.
If you do not understand, do not speak, freedom of speech is not for ignorant people like you to speak, to understand the proportion of China in the global shipbuilding industry in 2024, tell you, 90%😂
@@eomoro1199 And US fleets are scattered all around the world while chinese one would be concentrated around one area plus they would have arial support directly from mainland. So this tips the scale further into their direction. How good they actually are at fighting is a whole other story, as they have no experience with it, but when it comes to numbers, they may actually end up getting upper hand.
The thing is this , China’s shipbuilding is the biggest in the world for both commercial and military , furthermore they are the number 1 steel producer. With such massive operations they have economies of scale that is unmatched. In time this gap is just going to get bigger and their technology is closing fast on the US. I don’t see how the US can compete.
The solution was mentioned early on in the video… building commercial ships and military ships at the same time. And ofc… volume. Laying down 5-8 of the same ship side by side. And subsides… the US gave them out for commercial shipping into the early 80s. And then stopped.
The U.S. should focus on smaller vessels with a smaller crew but the same capabilities as destroyers that can be produced quickly rather than larger ones like the aircraft carriers that can take a long time time to build. We're in an age of drones, we don't necessarily need a huge number of f-35s
This is also reason why we need to defend global democracies (I know S. Korea was a dictatorship at first but it had the seeds of the transition to democracy), because if we didn't defend them back in the 50's then we wouldn't have their help now. Same goes for Ukraine, if we don't help defend Ukraine now then we won't have them as allies in the future.
A valid concern in some cramped places like Russia is finding out in the Black sea. But in a fight in the pacific these ships are never going within 200 miles of the Chinese coast and so cheap drone swarms are not going to reach them. These higher end ships are the only ones that could protect themselves and our carriers against longer ranged threats like submarines, anti ship ballistic missiles, air launched cruise missiles etc.
No. We use our Naval ships for power projection and Naval time interception. Those drones have a very limited range and flight time. 30 minutes and possibly 1 to 5 miles only depending on the wind and return flight back. Naval vessels in comparison can be out at sea for 6 months at a time and can have nearly an unlimited range. You can't do that with current drone technology. You can leave drones out as mines or for surveillance but it doesn't compare to a Naval warship. The ships are used to enforce international trade laws and to protect assets from piracy. If you removed warships, then your own trade vessels can be subject to piracy.
Nope. That's why America loses wars. In a war between two near peer or equal peer adversaries, it ALWAYS ends in a slug fest. It always does. From World War 1 - World War 2 to Ukraine. How can you say quality is better when America literally uses the QUANTITY military strategy that helped them win World War 2, - the same strategy that America talks bad about today? What do you think the arsenal of democracy EVEN IS? What do you think the SHERMAN TANK EVEN IS? It's QUANTITY, NOT QUALITY that wins wars between near peer / equal peer adversaries. There is NO discussion here. Which is exactly why Ukraine at the moment is losing looking at Pro-Ukrainian war maps. They are running low on manpower and has little to no manufacturing capacity to speak of. You guys always said about sending Ukraine MORE ARMS. Um....what do you think "MORE" arms mean? It means QUANTITY, because Ukraine DOES NOT have enough arms. And more arms require what? More FACTORIES and INDUSTRIAL POWER. It is what it is.
Seems like changing that outdated US law would be the most expedient and maybe cost effective way to get more USN ships from our Asian partners, who aren't happy about China's rise.
@@rickson50you know how to quickly get trained people? It’s going to be a hard pill to swallow for some people…immigration. Make it super easy for people with certain skills to come over. No matter what they look like. That’s an easy short term fix.
Pretending like the US is somehow behind China in terms of naval strength is the greatest marketing campaign of our generation. What an incredible way to increase the budget.
Thank you. I saw this headline and thought I'd wandered into bizzarro world. The last simulations of conflict between US and China I'm aware of has the US winning any naval engagement. In worst case scenarios, we lose one Carrier. No way China matches US naval power.
@@WestOfEarth i dont know what simulations you speak of but all the ones I have read online tells of the US defeat. The US is really far from its turf and it doesn't have much bases to hold its navy ships.... unless the US wants to bring Japan and the Philippines into war which I doubt those two countries would be oblige to do so.
@@WestOfEarth The last simulations are of the CSIS in which you look at the sponsors which are from American defense contractors. OF COURSE THEY WANTED AMERICA TO WIN so they can advertise and sell their weapons. If you look at U.S GOVERNMENT naval simulations of a war between America and China, America loses nearly all of them. Who says about China just matching US naval power, on the other hand, the largest missile program on this planet is from China. China literally has enough industrial might to fight a war with just missiles. Literally.
Usually I don't trust the WSJ but they have adopted a sort of "Vice News" format of reporting at least on TH-cam. I am a sucker for these. Watch em on my work breaks a lot.
Without escorts, the carriers would be lost in short order to submarines or enemy surface ships and hypersonic missiles designed specifically to destroy carriers.
Rabbit and the Tortoise. I wouldn't be too complacent If I'm the US. Don't do what the Russians did, which underestimate the US. Now you guys are underestimating China. China is overtaking some industries rapidly. (Phones, Connectivity, Railways, Cars, Ship building). When will US wake up to reality?
@@jakemurray2635 you dont need 30 escorts to sufficiently protect a carrier. I know what you mean, but if you compare the doctrine, the chinese navy is meant for green water power projection and not blue water, as they know that they will never match the US blue water capabilities.
For us to build ONE shipyard is a monumental task! It would take us dozens of years to equal the output of Chinese-built ships. What we DO have are better ships, helmed by people trained by others who have had ACTUAL combat experience. Further, we have better anti-ship missiles, and with enough of them, fired by planes that the Chinese will NOT SEE in combat, we can STILL prevail.
Only time US is very fast when giving money to Ukraine Super fast when giving money to Israel But very slow to allocate money for building US infrastructure and building southern border. Nice job America.
Actually, a lot of the budget in the supposed foreign aid is actually just a cover for investment in US arms industry. For more info, look up Perun's video on Ukraine Aid.
Not just shipyard. the trained engineers and workers, all the steel, parts and subsystem, i.e. whole shipbuilding industry & infrastructure. Impossible or too expensive and time consuming to revive.
@@youcantataI always hear how it’s “impossible” to re industrialize. What a looser attitude. China started with nothing but dirt! Nonsense that US cannot have industry and factories and shipyards.
Just like Trump tariffs will only move manufacturing into countries like Vietnam/India/Mexico, not back to America. US expensive yet under productive workforce will force US to move more navy contracts to Korea or Japan.
But a US Arleigh Berk destroyer is MUCH more capable than the Chinese counterpart with not only more reliable systems and better training, but better damage control and safety, better weapon systems, better radar systems, better communications... It is easily worth spending 3-4x as much.
That's not necessarily true. Their newer ships all have ASEA radar like Arleigh Berk. It's debatable the effectiveness but if we're being honest, none of us know the true capability of each radar and how they work in wars. When was the last time US fought a modern navy with similar equipment? People always talk big game but never have facts to back it up. A lot of things are speculation like your ballpark 3-4x as much comment out of no where. I can name a few facts that are logical. 1) Chinese carrier operation is definitely new. It takes a lot of training/practice to be successful. Even US navy often had accidents landing. So it's fair to assume Chinese training needs more work. 2) Their systems are all new for their crews, so even if we assume radar tech is same level we can assume their operational efficiency isn't as strong. So your comment about better damage control is probably a fair one.
Nope. Absolutely not. The most capable destroyer in the world at this moment in time by U.S and European naval analysts is the Chinese type 055 Renhai class destroyer. It is a destroyer that has the firepower of a cruiser and literally DWARFS the Arleigh Burke in terms of size(tonnage) and firepower. It is also the ONLY destroyer in the world capable of launching HYPERSONIC missiles at targets. The Renhai class destroyer is the most LETHAL surface based NON CARRIER combatant.
@@Tau_Long_Ranged_Fire_Support that’s if you go by missile count. It’s hard to say what is the best in real world. Even the Chinese are mass building smaller type 54 frigates. In real world battle which has never happened before (modern navies), is when we will see the performance of all the radar, missile, training, put into test. Until then it’s all in theory for everybody. War games and training are as close to reality as we get for now
Is it worth it? I don't think so. In World War II, The German tanks had better weapons and better operators. However, they were not produced in large enough quantities to make up for the losses in battle. Wars are a race of attrition. Without the support of the United States and Europe, Ukraine might have become Russian territory. Without China's support for Russia, Russia might fall apart again.
The U.S. has three major allies in Asia that are among the top 10 shipbuilding countries which are South Korea (2nd), Japan (3rd), and the Philippines (8th). Why hasn't the U.S. used this strong partnership to work together on building ships or strengthening its navy? These countries could help the U.S. improve its own navy.
The United States should completely outsource the manufacturing of warships to its allies. Forcing production in the US will only increase costs and reduce efficiency.
I am surprised that the US shipyards building Arleigh Burke flight 3 ships haven't outsource the contracts to Korea for $600M and then pocket $1B difference........
The 1965 law referenced in the video is what’s lining the defense Contracotr CEOs’ pockets. The entire video was about how the Navy is trying to reverse the high prices and long lead times of military vessels.
The loss of sustainable and low-cost advanced manufacturing in U.S. is equivalent to the destruction of the country. B/c the deindustrialization process in the U.S. has not ended, the systemic corruption in the U.S. defense procurement system has caused U.S. to lose its position as a global hegemon in the middle of the 21st century.
Forcefully manufacturing in the United States will only bring greater losses. Outsourcing to Japan and South Korea has at least introduced competition, putting pressure on the obese and lazy military industrial complex.
Large asian companies train and take care of their employees relatively well. In the US they expect the employee to be trained and in debt before hiring them. Asian work culture can become quite toxic when they get too competitive, but it’s not like US companies care about their employees anymore.
US Shipyards: Demand highest price and salary first. But repeated delays, and resulted failed warships. Asian Shipyards: Accept lower price and salary. But produced faster than scheduled, and good warships.
This is the worst propaganda so far by WSJ - a new low, i am very impressed. Go research the number of chinese chips vs. US chips yourself. In terms of capabilities, the chinese navy is WAY behind the US. The number of hulls tells nothing of military potential. The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million (U.S.) tons of ships in its fleet, nearly twice the size of China's combined fleets of just over 2 million tons. But even with number of hulls and tonnage, you still don´t get the military potential and the power difference is huge. So why this piece - What is the intention of WSJ?
Using tonnage as the sole metric is just as laughable as number of ships. Logical person would say, look at the number of vertical launchers, the missiles, sub-systems like AESA radars, both in terms of numbers, performance, and production capability. Yes, a lot of those information aren't going to be public, but that's as scientific of an approach as possible. When you say "way behind" doesn't sound credible at all. You are basically the flip side of this video, only you have provided nothing but tonnage numbers to the conversation. At least the video got some construction cost figures to compare SK vs US
@@dailyrant4068 I can recommend you a couple of sources; for example @PerunAU has some very detailed analysis. A simple web search also brings up a LOT of great analysis, specially from people outside the US. My point was: WSJ is just pushing propaganda. Do you own research and don´t trust this channel, as it is obviously pushing an agenda. Personally i belief that china is mainly trying to protect itself against a bully and the buildup of chinese navy ships is a reaction, not a strategy.
it depends on location of battle fields. id near china, US navy has possibility of lose. china will use many missiles from ground and they can use much more air fighters.
Never thought we'd come to see a day when American shipyard industry lags far behind to the point of seeking technical expertise from Korea. O ye how the great have fallen!!
there is a risk of outsourcing in korea since it is well documented that tech secrets in korea are often leaked to china, but there is little risk in Japan since unlike korea, Japan is very well known for being very wary of China and as such have lots of anti-espionage laws.
Just think of it like this: When Germany was trying to take over Great-Britain, the US supplied them with immense amounts of armaments and other supplies. Why? Was that about the US or Great-Britain? BOTH. The US does not want to dominate the world alongside Germany nor China. It wants to be the top dog. For many reasons. Good and bad reasons.
I think we could help usa but the shipbuilding has to be profitible, like the korean guys said if you run a shipbuilding company it can be hard to get a steady stream of new orders because boats are very expensive. I heard 80% of the worlds ocean is still unexplored.
Tired of people blaming workers. When the issue is Mega Corporation Mergers that shut down critical production hubs to reduce "operational" cost. Lean production should not be a thing in Critical industries. The government has a responsibility to maintain a certain level of production capacity
@jakefromstfm the US Shipbuilders haven't put the Navy in a touch spot. The government, letting DoD contractor merge their way from 33 major firms in the 90s to only 5 today. Is the reason we don't have the capacity when we need it. Anti Trust is a function of national security not just economic policy.
The last thing you will see in the US army manufacturing is progress and efficiency in construction. The biggest example is US incompetence in supplying Ukraine. The lobbying makes things as slow as the congress
U.S. supply to Ukraine is the main reason they're still an independent country at this stage. I would agree that there were avoidable delays, but those were of a political nature (see House republicans blocking aid for over 6 months).
Korean yards can also do MRO work for existing USN ships for starters and then if they do a good job and do it cheaply the US can invite them to take over an old yard or set up a new one in the US like what the Italians have done. Such a move will mean everything is built in the USA. The US will have total oversight on construction, be able to create more jobs while better competing with China in warship numbers. The Koreans will be happy because they will have a steady stream of work from Uncle Sam.
Simple answer, cheap labor. You can not build efficiently here in the US because of labor unions and the government willingness to write blank checks for very little in return.
China claims they have a larger navy that the US, but in reality, none of their vessels are blue water capable, and the reason that number is so high is that they include anything that floats. So, to say that the Chinese have a larger Navy is disingenuous.
China has not claimed that its navy is larger than that of the United States. It is the United States itself that has been promoting the China threat theory.
If we look at statistics, the USA is always miles ahead of any country including China. I find these comparison videos trying to vie China and the USA very sill tbh. China has to feed 4 times the population of the USA with no allies. USA however is already an advanced economy in every department. Look at its overseas territories, military might, and several bases all over the world. Can China match it? I don't think so, even with all the ways China is trying to catch up.
The powerful United States? Well, maybe you are still living in the 1980s. The Soviets seemed to think so. China does not need allies to counter the United States. So who is more powerful? ? ?
The primary purpose of military expenditures is to employ the most people for the longest time. The secondary purpose is battlefield utility. Unless you’re willing to upset congressmen near those districts, labor unions, and the big contractors, you can’t change a thing.
We are the most armed country in the world, and we need more weapons to protect ourselves because there are always threats against us. Arms dealers: Make America great again.
At the world’s largest shipyard, U.S. courts an ally to face up to China: on.wsj.com/4eeERfk
Slava 🇹🇼 Heroyam TAIWANese 🦾
P 0:42
6:35 6:35
too late.. will definitely fail.
China will rule the waves this century.
This sounds good on paper but the asian efficiencies aren't a secret. They have the trained workforces and we don't. It's true across the construction space. High speed rail, chip faabs, etc. We offshored all the manufacturing and are now multiple generations removed from having enough institutional knowledge in our workforce. It will similarly take many years (and a lot of money) to build this capacity back up.
It is not just about the workforce. I believe the US has enough skilled labor to match the Chinese and Koreans, but the main issue is the industrial ecosystem. There are a lot components that go into shipbuilding, and it wouldn't do you much good if your skilled labor still has to import chips and other important components all the way from Taiwan, and other Asian countries.
This workforce is also really cheap because all the salaries as well as the cost of living in the country are much lower than even the cheapest US states not to speak of the East and West Coasts where the shipyards are located. Moreover, Koreans, like Japanese and Taiwanese, live in an overtime culture (until 2018 they worked 52-h weeks instead of 40-h).
There is no way the US can copy that, hence no way American shipbuilders are competitive in commercial shipbuilding, therefore not much improvement is possible in military shipbuilding as well (those are coupled)
It's not fixable might as well just burn the money, modern "Stock - Buy back" America is incapable of conducting long term industrial projects any attempt inevitably devolves into an MBA infused gift of contractors , outsourcing, downsizing etc.... see Boeing and Intel. The trend started in the 80's.
Experienced workers are rapidly approaching retirement. Apprenticeships would be a better choice than yet more BA or IT graduates.
@@corvusglaive5769 The US does make chips --- low end chips, admittedly. However, many functions do not require high end chips.
Besides losing many of our shipyards, we have lost virtually our entire machine tool industry.
Did we lose them or throw them away?
@@TheRadioAteMyTVyou threw them away to your corporate overlords and those corporate overlords then sent it to China/Asia. US has lost its skills and craftsmanship. Millennials and GenZ won’t do this heavy dirty works 😅
@@mayhemcry We didn't throw them to the corporations, they were taken away from the corporations and are essentially now gone.
YES! Thank you. Danley Machine comes to mind when it was in Cicero, IL. near Chicago.
@@TheRadioAteMyTV we sold them for shiny marbles
They’re building Arleigh Burkes at a third of the cost, and in a fraction of the time it takes the U.S. to build one. U.S. shipyards have become a laughingstock
US department of defense is good at spending the most money to do the least.
Building junk does not mean anything.
@@Art-is-craftkeep believing that it'll help you to sleep
@@Art-is-craft Junk? You mean like the Freedom, Independence, and Zumwalt classes?
Chinas navy is improving with every ship they build. Its a real issue.
@@Felix0587
Painting a vessel green or grey does not make it capable of naval warfare. Throwing out numbers does mean anything. Germany had 1200 U-boats in WW2 and still did not dominate the Atlantic.
Remember when Romney was running for president and was literally laughed at for bringing this up?
Yes. I do.
Remember that he put his dog on his car roof while driving on the highway
It’s actually infuriating how much politicians laughed off anyone not acting like peer and near peer conflicts would never be a thing again after the Cold War.
The point does still still the same however, pure numbers of ships isn't relevant, tonnage is most often used as the preferred measurement for a reason, china still cant compare to the dozen super carriers the US has
Remember when republicans primaried in Romney and then 4 years later the same people started pretending to be conservative?
The USA seems to be waking from its complacent slumber.
Turns out a country needs more than FAANG companies to thrive 😂
Not really. It's more like America is turning over to hit the snooze and going back to bed
4PM time for bed Sleepy Joe@@sleepyjoe4529
@@sleepyjoe4529 Especially if supply has to come from allies and not domestically
@@sleepyjoe4529 The navy is waking. Most Americans have zero say about defense procurement. Your channel name has become irrelevant. Fitting, perhaps.
You forgot to mention that the US is more relying on attack submarines.
Here’s a novel idea: change the law 🙄
That would undermine US workers and would give South Korea to much politcal leverage over the US. The military politcal leverage game goes both ways. I build your navies I own you.
@@OGUNite I am surprised that the US shipyards haven't charged the DOD $1.6B for a new Burke class ship, then outsource the contracts to South Korea for $600M and pocket $1B difference........
@@thejeffinvadenot sure they can do that
Don't forget that DoD spending is also partley pork barrel spending.
Zut alors!! humans can do that?
Hyundai... Hanhwa... Mitsubishi... Sumimoto... all great potential partners for the navy.
Why would they help you to take away their business?
All Owned by FOREIGN Countries 😮
@@jkselama9715 They don't have a business with the US navy anyway. So they can at least charge for consulting.
Foreign companies getting deep into military secrets??
NOT Hyundai.
Remember Baltimore Bridge collapse?
hyundai engine stop working. they are not reliable .
The US should and could be building those ships domestically. RoK didn’t build them at all before the 1970s and only started because of an aggressive industrialization drive. The US can re-industrialize if we can get our policy-making away from big pockets.
You dont have the manpower for it
No, you cannot. That is like South Korea saying that they can take over as the tech capital of the world away from the United States. Complete nonsense.
🎯
@@jaja3359Robots
@@dxelson Maybe in the future yeah but that wont solve the current problems
just shows you how our divisive politics are distracting us from these real issues
I don't they get that domestic issues matter more
@SpaceAgePac Yeah because having our country invaded in the future sure isn't as important, that'll be a bigger domestic issue
define "real issues"
@@recon_ron7746 living in fear that "our country will be invaded" is such a little girl excuse to fund the military billions whilst people are starving.
As opposed to real issues like police violence, highest incarceration rates, rising homelessness, a drug epidemic, falling life expectancy, falling real wages etc?
I worked for a company that had government contracts for various electronic parts. They were the only US based company that made these parts so could charge outrageous prices for subpar products. Military/Medical electronic component specs was
Trade protection will only make the protected more lazy and obese.
This is especially true for domestic military products, which has become a huge corruption chain.
That's a big issue in the US. Cutting corners, low quality results.
Admiral Del Toro knows what he is doing. This partnership is great and necessary.
An important note to make. The number of battle force ships it’s important, quite important in fact, but it does not tell the whole story. The tonnage of the US Navy is double that of China, and the number of Chinese warships that match American ones is currently only a few dozen.
This doesn’t mean China can or isn’t catching up, though. Its tonnage added per year equate to an entire French Navy, so this is still an important issue to tackle.
That was the IJN's strategy in WW2. a few big heavy capital ships. But no capacity to replace them. The 6 carriers and Yamato once sunk, was not replaced.
The tonnage lead is help up by very few 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers that are looking increasingly obsolete. China already posesses hypersonic missiles that are capable of sinking a Nimitz Class carrier.
the difference is not as significant as you think. chinese naval policy is focused on regional dominance and littoral warfare, not playing global policeman. US has significantly more tonnage, yes, but it is distributed across the globe in many places simultaneously. china has plans to enlarge to 6 aircraft carriers, and currently has 3+3 LHDs. China does not need too many vessels when they have extremely potent ASM capabilities. the issue is that US naval dominance in the pacific is being challenged... US only has 1 active CSG in the region currently, and 2 other ARGs... this force cannot match that of the chinese navy
Saying American weapons are always superior to other, is an extreme arrogance, look at Ukraine War, American weapons are FAILING !!!!
@@bxndaries it's not really littoral anymore. Save for attack boats and corvettes (most of the latter have been transfered to the coast guard), the PLAN is a USN analogue through and through. Carriers, destroyers, AORs, etc.
Korea has no reason to build shipbuilding yard in the US. America has no workers and the cost is very high.
Let South Korea make American warship. America did nothing to rebuild its own shipbuilding industry. It will be minus points to Korea if they move shipbuilding yards to the US. Furthermore, shipbuilding industry is strategically very important for Korea.
Do not expect Korea to move their industry to the US. Its not yours. Will u agree if Korea force the US to move their all factories to Korea? To build Korea great again? Lol
Hanhwa shipbuilding has already boutght American shipyards. They are not planning to "move" shipbuilding to the US-it's an expansion of operations. It's a win-win for bout Korean companies(who can get contracts for US naval ships) and the US(who gets ships built with US labor).
@@가니메데 Hanhwa bought Philadelphia Shipyards, which has been operating at a loss for quite a long time.
It's not a clear-cut win-win situation because while they can now earn US navy contracts, this means that Hanhwa is still likely building them at a loss.
Well, in that case, I hope Hanhwa has plans to turn a profit. I would imagine they have one, and even if they don't, for the short term Hanhwa's profits from other contracts should be more than enough to cover losses. It's been a fairly good year for the Korean shipbuilding industry so far.
Here are some more facts they leave out. The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million (U.S.) tons of ships in its fleet, nearly twice the size of China’s combined fleets of just over 2 million tons.
While I believe we should probably repeal that 1965 protectionist law, (then buy frigates and Corvettes and destroyers from South Korea spending the money on outfitting them with better electronics / weapons and submarines from Sweden) this is a bit alarmist but all the facts should be known. For the record the US should be a little bit alarmed.
the whole world should be alarmed: the global standard currency for oil is the us dollar. why? not only because the us has one of the largest reserves--if not the largest, but because its military is the only one that is truly "global". what would happen if china closes the gap? this is scary for many reasons, and has consequences that trickle outside of just potential armed conflicts.
Slava TSMC 🇹🇼
We should be alarmed, but we need to understand that the range of US, Japanese, and UK ships is far superior than China's
Only one thing is scary, which is US debts!
In any combat-based situation, shipyards far away from the mainland are fragile and vulnerable to attack, and this approach will not increase American employment. The American people expect jobs and actions like this mean nothing to American manufacturing!
The U.S. should seek efficiency and speed by sharing naval ship MRO work with allies like South Korea.
This is no secrect: Outsourcing military ship building like outsourcing everything else ...
Just need to outsource the government to complete the process. The economists ought to be very happy then.
I guess the US should focus on teaching trades again and stop telling folks to get useless college degree's and watching the sheep spend/borrow $150k or more to get gender studies degree's. Probably should start supporting applicable trades and pay living wages to make it happen.
And who cheered on that de-industrialization ?
Why, it was the WSJ!!!
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
You forgot NASSCO in San Diego. It’s the largest shipyard on the west coast
Why is usa navy in Asia ?
because all these countries need help, always, forever and ever.
@@sweetbriarhuslin7371 They would not need any "help" if we do not instigate any war around the world.
The US should be making its own ships.
why don't you
Nobody forbids the United States from making ships.
But obviously, no one wants to invest in this field because it is unprofitable.
Good luck finding enough Asians to fill the work force.
“Catch up”?
The US Navy has well over twice the tonnage, decades more experience, massive tech advantages…
That was a hopeless piece for WSJ
We are talking about industrial capacity to produce ships... not tonnage... what it means if we lag behind in military industrial capacity is that the Chinese can build, refit, and repair way faster than we can. At that point tonnage doesn’t matter since they can build literally more, faster, heavier.
Oh boy we got a NPC here guys........experience is not inherited.......there is no 'massive' technology advantage - the US navy has no defense against hypersonic missiles lol And tonnage does not matter once a a ship is hit by a salvo of Hypersonic missiles. The USS ford crew is short by 500 sailors.....no one wants to join your military 🤣🤣
@@adnausi "Tonnage doesnt matter" do you even know what tonnage means? Tonnage = ability to withstand damage, i.e not needing dry-dock repairs. The Chinese have smaller, weaker vessels that will be torn apart and sit in dry dock.
@@amunra5330 Winnie the Pooh called he says you have the day off to change your diaper
@@scparker6893 tonnage is the sizes of the ships specifically.
I was able to briefly see the Hyundai Shipyards in 2017, would be nice to go back and see how they are doing now. Great place with great workers.
Make SOJU 🍶 Great Again
South Koreans are clever. They are not only advanced in engineering, but they also secure supplies abroad at cheaper price.
They lead the word in average IQ at 107.
@@edwardkim8972 it's not just about the iq. It's about how a nation perform in a free market.
@@bulatog380 well, isn't a higher IQ nation better able to perform in a free market? Sounds like a chicken or egg question.
@@edwardkim8972 Talk Russia, where chess is a national sports. Like an egg and chicken question duh?
@@bulatog380 Wait, so having our most popular sport be something that literally damaged the brains of our youth is a bad idea? Who would have guessed that.
Sorry one more thing, we clearly should be heavily investing into unmanned submarine and drone technology. The mass of the water is an extra layer of armor, and in the saturated air space of a future war, having an ocean above you is highly valuable. Not having the humans on board means the ship can conserve space, energy, be a smaller target, but still get orders from command.
We already are, google Anduril. They are a defense company that is working hard at high volume, low cost weapons with god-like software. America isn't losing its place as the monopoly on violence anytime soon.
we released an unmanned underwater drone recently its considered quite stealthy
Yup....the Manta Ray....hopefully it tests out better than those 3 "advanced" destroyers that the USN will never use
@@Thor_Odinsongood hopefully we don't have to 👍🏼
I remember in a recent wargame of china invading taiwan we lose like hundreds of aircraft on the ground and 1-2 carriers from chinese missile strikes. Our submarines did far better being able to sink much of the invasion fleet in the taiwan straight. Also Japan and S. Korea both field modern attack submarines. I have questions about unmanned systems like the Manta Ray in terms of capabilities and how it would realistically perform in a hot war but it is definitely an interesting concept.
I'm pretty sure labor costs are lower in states like South Carolina and U.S. territories such as American Samoa that can be utilized to build Navy Ships.
But it still cannot make the shipyard profitable
Change the 1965 protection law so US can buy hulls (and non-critical components) built to their specification from trusted allies. Then bring the ships to American yards and fit it out with the latest and greatest radars, sensors, and weapons. This should save costs, build up domestic industry and help with employment while at the same time cut construction time and prevent unwanted top secret tech from being copied. In the long run the US may even be able to build ships without relying on foreign yards.
Will this kind of behavior create jobs in the United States?
Why do they never differentiate types of vessels and tonnage. Purposefully ignoring the context of littoral vs blue water, and without mentioning tonnage, you’re willfully misleading the public towards alarmist conclusions.
Well said! Well I believe that we should be a little bit alarmed the all the facts need to be put out there. For proper comparison The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million (U.S.) tons of ships in its fleet, nearly twice the size of China’s combined fleets of just over 2 million tons.
The entire Chinese Navy is primarily active around the seas next to China. Unlike the US Navy which is spread thin globally.
Yea exactly! I keep hearing talk about ship count but nobody talks about tonnage. Who cares if the PRoC builds a bunch of tiny boats to patrol their coastline?
exactly! sounds like alarmism to let the public think we should dump more money into military again. However, we have 11 aircraft carriers whereas china only have 2 carriers. That's a significant difference already.
This should be the top comment.
Do these ships also come with the 5 year, 100k mile warranty?
I love that the same company that builds the Elantra builds destroyers.
Korea are already making selling their K9 and K2 to many countries, and they are one of the efficient and reliable products that are out there right now. so i wouldn't compare elantra to those
Well they are currently legally different companies, both are offsprings of the former Hyundai group (which imploded in the early 2000s). But there might have been a time period where the same company was indeed building both cars and warships.
China has a larger Navy than US does? Well that’s new.
US has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carrier fleet, while China has only 3 coal-burning ac.
A few corrections:
China has 3 liquid-powered carriers, not coal. The PLAN isn't interested in patrolling shipping lanes, unlike the US Navy, hence the need for nuclear carriers.
The PLAN has also shied away from building a large fleet of carriers, given their vulnerability and large number of assets they consume - escort ships, subs and aircraft. Though, it's observed they see owning a nuclear-carrier as a way of showcasing themselves as a superpower.
China has already made the US carrier groups inert by developing vast arsenals of missiles that can keep US carriers out of aircraft range of the Chinese coast. Leaving them exposed to the growing threat of China's submarines.
Today's navy scale only proves that US had larger construction ability/ship-industry than China in 1990s. But today's construction ablility predicts the NAVY scale in the 20 years.
@@HexaSquirrel haha that’s what we make fun of the thick black smoke from chimney during sea test😬thanks for clarifying though
US and China navy won’t have a fight in the future, just deterring each other. China wants US to get out of our doorway, and US want China just stay in our backyard.
If us two strongest powers clash together, that might be the end of the world. Luckily we both have enough patience and wisdom to handle any situation.
@@kleinesbiest1264that's only from the liaoning, a Soviet era design. Just like the admiral kuznetsov. The newer carriers didn't produce black smoke.
Haha only 11? China will built maybe 4 times amount of that in near future.
The main bottle neck is with equipments rather than hulls. The Korean shipyard import much of the key equipments which is still controlled by US. So the bottleneck and over budget is still at US suppliers
Please provide an example.
Is the United States still producing shipbuilding equipment?
@@jogana6909 Mostly radars, missiles, vls, central command systems, gas turbines, drive trains, etc. These are the core of a warship and what makes them effective, and they are almost all controlled by US suppliers. When warships are maintained, refurbished or repaired, these are almost always the most important and crucial parts. For a logistical system with the Korean ship builders in the loop, there is a lot of physical and legal barriers in supplying these systems to Korea and train their personnel to the point that they can maintain and repair them.
How dumb could you be closing all those shipyards? 😂😂
reagan
Union labour cost.
Ask Congress who's controlled by mostly Republicans and Isolationists
You say that as if those shipyards were capable of producing functioning ships....
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Nahh, the Korean will tear thier hair out..
Cos, the design will kept changing WHILE UNDER CONSTRUCTION 😂😂.
Nevertheless, I still believe that their efficiency is higher than that of the US
Impressive efforts to level the naval playing field, America! 🚢
What about a lend-lease approach, the same as the US had with the UK during ww2.
China has 739 vessels in its navy, while the US has only 472. However, the US has 3,415,893 tons of ships, while China only has 708,886 tons. That makes the American navy almost five times larger. Furthermore, the vast majority of China's navy consists of short ranged coastal ships, whereas America's navy is worldwide in its reach. Comparing the two navies is like comparing apple to oranges, although apples to grapes might be a better comparison.
that's data from 2014 lol...a decade of rampant Chinese shipbuilding ago. Today, China is over 2,000,000 while the U.S is 4,500,000. In 10 years they went from 5x large to a little over 2x. The U.S navy isn't used to facing an adversary that is even this close at all, let alone one with who threatens to catch up. U.S Navy can't even handle Houthi rebels atm. Another issue is exactly what you mentioned: China is dominating the Taiwan Straight, South China Sea and relevant seas near them with ships while U.S commitments are spread globally. That's not a great look in preparation for potential scenarios. Also worth noting ships are going out of commission because recruiting and staff are low.
If you do not understand, do not speak, freedom of speech is not for ignorant people like you to speak, to understand the proportion of China in the global shipbuilding industry in 2024, tell you, 90%😂
Bro forgot to update his info.😂
The range doesn't matter at the moment since the immediate conflict is the South China sea
@@eomoro1199 And US fleets are scattered all around the world while chinese one would be concentrated around one area plus they would have arial support directly from mainland. So this tips the scale further into their direction. How good they actually are at fighting is a whole other story, as they have no experience with it, but when it comes to numbers, they may actually end up getting upper hand.
It's crazy that the US can't buy ships from anyone else! They could do the tech fitout in 🇺🇸, but most of it isn't classified at all!
The thing is this , China’s shipbuilding is the biggest in the world for both commercial and military , furthermore they are the number 1 steel producer. With such massive operations they have economies of scale that is unmatched. In time this gap is just going to get bigger and their technology is closing fast on the US. I don’t see how the US can compete.
What do you mean catch up? China is the one who is still far behind.
The solution was mentioned early on in the video… building commercial ships and military ships at the same time.
And ofc… volume. Laying down 5-8 of the same ship side by side.
And subsides… the US gave them out for commercial shipping into the early 80s. And then stopped.
The U.S. should focus on smaller vessels with a smaller crew but the same capabilities as destroyers that can be produced quickly rather than larger ones like the aircraft carriers that can take a long time time to build. We're in an age of drones, we don't necessarily need a huge number of f-35s
The US also lacks the ability to produce small vessels
This is also reason why we need to defend global democracies (I know S. Korea was a dictatorship at first but it had the seeds of the transition to democracy), because if we didn't defend them back in the 50's then we wouldn't have their help now. Same goes for Ukraine, if we don't help defend Ukraine now then we won't have them as allies in the future.
But US has so many allies which China doesn’t have. You excluded the ships of our allies?
Don’t inexpensive drones make it a little silly to have giant fighting boats?
21st Jeune École
A valid concern in some cramped places like Russia is finding out in the Black sea. But in a fight in the pacific these ships are never going within 200 miles of the Chinese coast and so cheap drone swarms are not going to reach them. These higher end ships are the only ones that could protect themselves and our carriers against longer ranged threats like submarines, anti ship ballistic missiles, air launched cruise missiles etc.
You need both.
So far, those inexpensive drones have not scored a single hit on our ships in the Red Sea.
No. We use our Naval ships for power projection and Naval time interception. Those drones have a very limited range and flight time. 30 minutes and possibly 1 to 5 miles only depending on the wind and return flight back.
Naval vessels in comparison can be out at sea for 6 months at a time and can have nearly an unlimited range. You can't do that with current drone technology. You can leave drones out as mines or for surveillance but it doesn't compare to a Naval warship.
The ships are used to enforce international trade laws and to protect assets from piracy. If you removed warships, then your own trade vessels can be subject to piracy.
One rule, US ship builders have to keep the profit high for those rich parties.
Made in China ships. Quality (US Ships) over Quantity (CN)
Wrong !
Nope. That's why America loses wars. In a war between two near peer or equal peer adversaries, it ALWAYS ends in a slug fest. It always does. From World War 1 - World War 2 to Ukraine.
How can you say quality is better when America literally uses the QUANTITY military strategy that helped them win World War 2, - the same strategy that America talks bad about today? What do you think the arsenal of democracy EVEN IS? What do you think the SHERMAN TANK EVEN IS? It's QUANTITY, NOT QUALITY that wins wars between near peer / equal peer adversaries. There is NO discussion here.
Which is exactly why Ukraine at the moment is losing looking at Pro-Ukrainian war maps. They are running low on manpower and has little to no manufacturing capacity to speak of. You guys always said about sending Ukraine MORE ARMS. Um....what do you think "MORE" arms mean? It means QUANTITY, because Ukraine DOES NOT have enough arms. And more arms require what? More FACTORIES and INDUSTRIAL POWER. It is what it is.
we won WW2 on the idea of quantity over quality, especially in terms of ships.
Tell that to the Germans in WW2
This argument doesn't work in large numbers lol
China ship building are using modern technology & had millions of very skilled manpower.
US could outsource to China which is more cost effective and efficient.
Whats that
😂yes
The study that found ship yard a charging $10000 a bolt is probably part of the extreme cost
What do you mean “catch up”? USN is still #1 on earth
As long as they keep wanting welders with 3 years of experience minimum but keep paying entry level wages, they won't solve their personal problems.
you haven't got a clue what you are talking about
These lessons revived must be learned quickly
Seems like changing that outdated US law would be the most expedient and maybe cost effective way to get more USN ships from our Asian partners, who aren't happy about China's rise.
We already lack factories and trained people. Now offshore it so even more factories can close down?
@rickson50 yeah then just wait until china outpaced the combat ship production rate..... We will lose war in tht case
@@rickson50you know how to quickly get trained people? It’s going to be a hard pill to swallow for some people…immigration. Make it super easy for people with certain skills to come over. No matter what they look like. That’s an easy short term fix.
Ukraine has shown the world that you don't need ships if you have drones.
China is also a major manufacturer of drones, and many of the drones used in Ukraine and Russia are Chinese DJI drones purchased from middlemen.
It's not just numbers, it is also the capabilities of the ships and the quality of the organization. Would anyone take the PLAN over the USN?
PLAN is more advanced in weaponry.
USN calls itself advanced only because of nuclear powered vessels.
It's impossible to say without personal bias encroaching, Neither organization has fought an equal peer in well over 70 years.
I can understand your unprofessionalism, but the fact is that the People's Liberation Army is far ahead
America's navy still dwarf's China's in terms of tonnage.
Pretending like the US is somehow behind China in terms of naval strength is the greatest marketing campaign of our generation. What an incredible way to increase the budget.
Thank you. I saw this headline and thought I'd wandered into bizzarro world. The last simulations of conflict between US and China I'm aware of has the US winning any naval engagement. In worst case scenarios, we lose one Carrier. No way China matches US naval power.
It's going up regardless with the war in ukraine
@@WestOfEarth i dont know what simulations you speak of but all the ones I have read online tells of the US defeat. The US is really far from its turf and it doesn't have much bases to hold its navy ships.... unless the US wants to bring Japan and the Philippines into war which I doubt those two countries would be oblige to do so.
@@hehe-mq2bk How about we not listen to "What if's"
@@WestOfEarth The last simulations are of the CSIS in which you look at the sponsors which are from American defense contractors. OF COURSE THEY WANTED AMERICA TO WIN so they can advertise and sell their weapons. If you look at U.S GOVERNMENT naval simulations of a war between America and China, America loses nearly all of them.
Who says about China just matching US naval power, on the other hand, the largest missile program on this planet is from China. China literally has enough industrial might to fight a war with just missiles. Literally.
Usually I don't trust the WSJ but they have adopted a sort of "Vice News" format of reporting at least on TH-cam. I am a sucker for these. Watch em on my work breaks a lot.
Why are you saying that the Us has to catch up... Look at the aircraft carriers. It doesnt matter who has more frigattes...
Look up the shipyard capacities, China has one that has greater output than all USA's domestic shipyards. it's a time game
Without escorts, the carriers would be lost in short order to submarines or enemy surface ships and hypersonic missiles designed specifically to destroy carriers.
Rabbit and the Tortoise. I wouldn't be too complacent If I'm the US. Don't do what the Russians did, which underestimate the US. Now you guys are underestimating China. China is overtaking some industries rapidly. (Phones, Connectivity, Railways, Cars, Ship building). When will US wake up to reality?
@@jkians21 and a intel game, which america is leading
@@jakemurray2635 you dont need 30 escorts to sufficiently protect a carrier. I know what you mean, but if you compare the doctrine, the chinese navy is meant for green water power projection and not blue water, as they know that they will never match the US blue water capabilities.
"China says it fired an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile into Pacific Ocean." - CBS News, Sept 25, 2024
Having repairs in Asia is the only good thing here. No successful model abroad can be replicated in the US.
For us to build ONE shipyard is a monumental task! It would take us dozens of years to equal the output of Chinese-built ships. What we DO have are better ships, helmed by people trained by others who have had ACTUAL combat experience. Further, we have better anti-ship missiles, and with enough of them, fired by planes that the Chinese will NOT SEE in combat, we can STILL prevail.
Only time US is very fast when giving money to Ukraine
Super fast when giving money to Israel
But very slow to allocate money for building US infrastructure and building southern border.
Nice job America.
It is easier for politicians to get kickbacks by paying abroad.
Actually, a lot of the budget in the supposed foreign aid is actually just a cover for investment in US arms industry. For more info, look up Perun's video on Ukraine Aid.
If you actually took a look at the aid bill, you would know a significant part of the money is being used to restart the defense industry.
Yeah instead of building shipyards let’s outsource the remaining! great idea WSJ! love it.
Not just shipyard. the trained engineers and workers, all the steel, parts and subsystem, i.e. whole shipbuilding industry & infrastructure. Impossible or too expensive and time consuming to revive.
@@youcantataI always hear how it’s “impossible” to re industrialize. What a looser attitude. China started with nothing but dirt! Nonsense that US cannot have industry and factories and shipyards.
@@youcantatanot with immigration. You have trained people elsewhere so why not bring them over?
Holy Ship💀
The problem is that South Korea + Japan's shipbuilding capacity is not as large as China's.
Taiwan also claim China their land
ROC
That's the cons of outsourcing manufacturing. You are losing the technological know how
Just like Trump tariffs will only move manufacturing into countries like Vietnam/India/Mexico, not back to America. US expensive yet under productive workforce will force US to move more navy contracts to Korea or Japan.
thats the exact opposite effect trump wants and will have on manufacturing.. no way youre a real person, definitely a bought and paid for comment-bot
But a US Arleigh Berk destroyer is MUCH more capable than the Chinese counterpart with not only more reliable systems and better training, but better damage control and safety, better weapon systems, better radar systems, better communications... It is easily worth spending 3-4x as much.
That's not necessarily true. Their newer ships all have ASEA radar like Arleigh Berk. It's debatable the effectiveness but if we're being honest, none of us know the true capability of each radar and how they work in wars.
When was the last time US fought a modern navy with similar equipment?
People always talk big game but never have facts to back it up. A lot of things are speculation like your ballpark 3-4x as much comment out of no where.
I can name a few facts that are logical. 1) Chinese carrier operation is definitely new. It takes a lot of training/practice to be successful. Even US navy often had accidents landing. So it's fair to assume Chinese training needs more work. 2) Their systems are all new for their crews, so even if we assume radar tech is same level we can assume their operational efficiency isn't as strong. So your comment about better damage control is probably a fair one.
Damage control? I guess rust control is not part of it.
Nope. Absolutely not. The most capable destroyer in the world at this moment in time by U.S and European naval analysts is the Chinese type 055 Renhai class destroyer. It is a destroyer that has the firepower of a cruiser and literally DWARFS the Arleigh Burke in terms of size(tonnage) and firepower. It is also the ONLY destroyer in the world capable of launching HYPERSONIC missiles at targets.
The Renhai class destroyer is the most LETHAL surface based NON CARRIER combatant.
@@Tau_Long_Ranged_Fire_Support that’s if you go by missile count.
It’s hard to say what is the best in real world. Even the Chinese are mass building smaller type 54 frigates. In real world battle which has never happened before (modern navies), is when we will see the performance of all the radar, missile, training, put into test.
Until then it’s all in theory for everybody. War games and training are as close to reality as we get for now
Is it worth it? I don't think so. In World War II, The German tanks had better weapons and better operators. However, they were not produced in large enough quantities to make up for the losses in battle. Wars are a race of attrition. Without the support of the United States and Europe, Ukraine might have become Russian territory. Without China's support for Russia, Russia might fall apart again.
This sounds like a recipe for disaster, and it sounds like we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
The U.S. has three major allies in Asia that are among the top 10 shipbuilding countries which are South Korea (2nd), Japan (3rd), and the Philippines (8th). Why hasn't the U.S. used this strong partnership to work together on building ships or strengthening its navy? These countries could help the U.S. improve its own navy.
The United States should completely outsource the manufacturing of warships to its allies.
Forcing production in the US will only increase costs and reduce efficiency.
That explanations and reasons presented by The Wall Street journal channel are incorrect concerning ships.
It's a shame we've given up ship building.
Who is "we"?
When shipbuilding is unprofitable, who should be asked to waste money?
🇺🇸🤝 🇰🇷
You mean how the Navy is helping the shipyard's CEO catch up with other billionaires.
They made billions when they outsourced our jobs now they are going to make billions more in gov handouts to bring the jobs back
I am surprised that the US shipyards building Arleigh Burke flight 3 ships haven't outsource the contracts to Korea for $600M and then pocket $1B difference........
Cause they legally can't?@@thejeffinvade
The 1965 law referenced in the video is what’s lining the defense Contracotr CEOs’ pockets. The entire video was about how the Navy is trying to reverse the high prices and long lead times of military vessels.
@@benedict6897 Because the military industrial complex has enough power to pass new legitimation in their favor.
I love the cherry picked facts. Yes China has more naval ships by numbers. If you go by weight tonnage. USA has far more superior ships.
China will have the full support of the Chinese Air force, including single seat tactical aircraft....
The loss of sustainable and low-cost advanced manufacturing in U.S. is equivalent to the destruction of the country. B/c the deindustrialization process in the U.S. has not ended, the systemic corruption in the U.S. defense procurement system has caused U.S. to lose its position as a global hegemon in the middle of the 21st century.
Forcefully manufacturing in the United States will only bring greater losses.
Outsourcing to Japan and South Korea has at least introduced competition, putting pressure on the obese and lazy military industrial complex.
@@jogana6909lost advance manufactuejobs equal lost future
Large asian companies train and take care of their employees relatively well. In the US they expect the employee to be trained and in debt before hiring them. Asian work culture can become quite toxic when they get too competitive, but it’s not like US companies care about their employees anymore.
US Shipyards: Demand highest price and salary first. But repeated delays, and resulted failed warships.
Asian Shipyards: Accept lower price and salary. But produced faster than scheduled, and good warships.
This is the worst propaganda so far by WSJ - a new low, i am very impressed.
Go research the number of chinese chips vs. US chips yourself.
In terms of capabilities, the chinese navy is WAY behind the US. The number of hulls tells nothing of military potential.
The U.S. Navy has over 3.6 million (U.S.) tons of ships in its fleet, nearly twice the size of China's combined fleets of just over 2 million tons.
But even with number of hulls and tonnage, you still don´t get the military potential and the power difference is huge.
So why this piece - What is the intention of WSJ?
Using tonnage as the sole metric is just as laughable as number of ships.
Logical person would say, look at the number of vertical launchers, the missiles, sub-systems like AESA radars, both in terms of numbers, performance, and production capability.
Yes, a lot of those information aren't going to be public, but that's as scientific of an approach as possible.
When you say "way behind" doesn't sound credible at all. You are basically the flip side of this video, only you have provided nothing but tonnage numbers to the conversation. At least the video got some construction cost figures to compare SK vs US
@@dailyrant4068 I can recommend you a couple of sources; for example @PerunAU has some very detailed analysis. A simple web search also brings up a LOT of great analysis, specially from people outside the US.
My point was: WSJ is just pushing propaganda. Do you own research and don´t trust this channel, as it is obviously pushing an agenda. Personally i belief that china is mainly trying to protect itself against a bully and the buildup of chinese navy ships is a reaction, not a strategy.
it depends on location of battle fields. id near china, US navy has possibility of lose. china will use many missiles from ground and they can use much more air fighters.
What about Japan??
I thought Japan is USA favorit in Asia
Military companies look to build military strength in other countries. US military companies look to line their pockets.
Never thought we'd come to see a day when American shipyard industry lags far behind to the point of seeking technical expertise from Korea.
O ye how the great have fallen!!
This is not surprising.
Humility leads to progress, while pride leads to backwardness
Outsoucing to South Korea and Japan is also risky.
there is a risk of outsourcing in korea since it is well documented that tech secrets in korea are often leaked to china, but there is little risk in Japan since unlike korea, Japan is very well known for being very wary of China and as such have lots of anti-espionage laws.
@@emikomina japan is a part of china secretly.
Is it really about Taiwan? Or US itself?
Both
Just think of it like this: When Germany was trying to take over Great-Britain, the US supplied them with immense amounts of armaments and other supplies. Why? Was that about the US or Great-Britain? BOTH. The US does not want to dominate the world alongside Germany nor China. It wants to be the top dog. For many reasons. Good and bad reasons.
They really really care about the democracy and human rights of the 25m people on the other side of the world.
Slava 🇹🇼 Geroyam TAIWANese 🦾
I think we could help usa but the shipbuilding has to be profitible, like the korean guys said if you run a shipbuilding company it can be hard to get a steady stream of new orders because boats are very expensive. I heard 80% of the worlds ocean is still unexplored.
Tired of people blaming workers. When the issue is Mega Corporation Mergers that shut down critical production hubs to reduce "operational" cost. Lean production should not be a thing in Critical industries. The government has a responsibility to maintain a certain level of production capacity
No one blamed the workers in this video
@jakefromstfm the last line is "worker have put the US Navy in a tough spot." Therefore blaming laws that protect workers. 6:17
@@OGUNite timestamp?
@jakefromstfm the US Shipbuilders haven't put the Navy in a touch spot. The government, letting DoD contractor merge their way from 33 major firms in the 90s to only 5 today. Is the reason we don't have the capacity when we need it. Anti Trust is a function of national security not just economic policy.
@@OGUNite that’s not a timestamp
Unions are why ship building is so slow & expensive.
The last thing you will see in the US army manufacturing is progress and efficiency in construction. The biggest example is US incompetence in supplying Ukraine. The lobbying makes things as slow as the congress
The US is not incompetent in supplying Ukraine lol. Where did you get that from?
U.S. supply to Ukraine is the main reason they're still an independent country at this stage. I would agree that there were avoidable delays, but those were of a political nature (see House republicans blocking aid for over 6 months).
Korean yards can also do MRO work for existing USN ships for starters and then if they do a good job and do it cheaply the US can invite them to take over an old yard or set up a new one in the US like what the Italians have done. Such a move will mean everything is built in the USA. The US will have total oversight on construction, be able to create more jobs while better competing with China in warship numbers. The Koreans will be happy because they will have a steady stream of work from Uncle Sam.
Simple answer, cheap labor. You can not build efficiently here in the US because of labor unions and the government willingness to write blank checks for very little in return.
Get the mexicans.
Look at 1949 China's Navy. How did they "catch up".
Is that supposed to mean something?
China claims they have a larger navy that the US, but in reality, none of their vessels are blue water capable, and the reason that number is so high is that they include anything that floats. So, to say that the Chinese have a larger Navy is disingenuous.
the Type 055 DDG is larger and more capaple than the Arleigh Burke DDG and Ticonderoga CG. I assure you, they are completely blue water capable.
China has not claimed that its navy is larger than that of the United States. It is the United States itself that has been promoting the China threat theory.
old timer is also outdated - "none of their vessels are blue water capable" - LoL.
Blue-water/Ocean-going
Aircraft carriers 016, 017, 018 - 2 + (1 sea trials). 70k - 90k ton.
Landing helicopter docks Class 075 - 6. 40k ton.
Amphibious transport docks Class 071 - 8. 30k ton.
Destroyers - 50. 055 12k ton; 052D 8k ton; Other classes 5k - 7k ton.
Frigates 054A - 47. 4k ton.
Ballistic missile submarines - 7
Nuclear attack submarines - 9
Conventional attack submarines - 45
Replenishment oilers - 16. 20k - 50k ton.
Coastal/brown-water
Landing ship tanks - 36
Landing ship medium - 36
Corvettes - 72
Missile boats - 107
Submarine chasers - 26
Gunboats - 17
Mine countermeasures vessels - 36
Auxiliaries (various) - 233*
If we look at statistics, the USA is always miles ahead of any country including China. I find these comparison videos trying to vie China and the USA very sill tbh. China has to feed 4 times the population of the USA with no allies. USA however is already an advanced economy in every department. Look at its overseas territories, military might, and several bases all over the world. Can China match it? I don't think so, even with all the ways China is trying to catch up.
Turn off the TV, bro. It's fried your brain
The powerful United States? Well, maybe you are still living in the 1980s. The Soviets seemed to think so.
China does not need allies to counter the United States. So who is more powerful? ? ?
The primary purpose of military expenditures is to employ the most people for the longest time. The secondary purpose is battlefield utility. Unless you’re willing to upset congressmen near those districts, labor unions, and the big contractors, you can’t change a thing.
Wait wait, catch up? But I thought the US Navy was the best in the world!
We are the most armed country in the world, and we need more weapons to protect ourselves because there are always threats against us. Arms dealers: Make America great again.