055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[antiterror13]

you need to give your opponent some wins (minor wins) for their domestic politic purpose

 

[Tam]

Did you know that US only imported less than one million metric tons of Chinese steel last year, about 3% of total imported steel by value? In fact, Taiwan, which is not exactly known for its steel industry, exported more steel to the U.S. than China did, at 4% of total value. South Korea accounted for around 10%, and Japan another 7% or so. Canada is by far the largest exporter of steel to the U.S..

Excellent figures to note. Looks like trying to hurt China, hurts US allies even more.

 

[Lethe]

The Japanese, South Koreans and Europeans all continue to subsidize their ship building industries one way or another. Their subsidy policies contributed to the decline of US commercial ship production starting from the Sixties to the point that a few decades later...and continuing today

I am not questioning the wisdom of some level of subsidy and other tools of national policy in order to maintain strategically sensitive capabilities like naval shipbuilding. But the appropriate level of subsidy and corresponding scale of the national industry are open questions. Look at this way: why does China not subsidise shipbuilding at far higher levels? Why not have even more shipyards with more workers churning out more ships? The obvious answer is that, at some point, enough is enough, and that more shipyards and more workers would not meaningfully further the nation's strategic interests.

China is a country with an enormous domestic market and corresponding economies of scale, and low wages (compared to US, Europe, Japan, SK). Unlike European nations, China is not in any danger of losing strategically sensitive industrial capacity or skillsets. So what is the point of the current level of subsidy? The argument was previously made that China is providing additional demand in the form of naval contracts to protect the shipbuilding industry during a period of weak demand. But as I said before, it is now 2018, not 2009, and this rationale no longer makes sense. Or is it that China is actively attempting to expand its shipbuilding industry to pressure the industries of other nations and emerge as one of the dominant players in the market? If so, fine -- but that would favour investment in large yards with their economies of scale, not small ones.

But at the end of the day, if it is true that China's recent shipbuilding spree in fact reflects not military commitments, but economic-industrial ones, then that only reinforces my argument that we should focus on warship commissioning dates, not launch dates, to get a sense of where PLAN is going and how fast it is going there.

Excellent figures to note. Looks like trying to hurt China, hurts US allies even more.

Not everything the United States does is about China. In fact, most things aren't about China. Just as most of what China does is not about the United States.​

 

[asif iqbal]

Imagine China does a proper PR stunt and synchronises the launching of the 2 x Type 055 from DL and 1 x Type 055 from JNCX together on the same day !

Launch all 3 into the water imagine the media coverage they would die of a heart attack ! That would be some statement

 

[Rachmaninov]

Imagine China does a proper PR stunt and synchronises the launching of the 2 x Type 055 from DL and 1 x Type 055 from JNCX together on the same day !

Launch all 3 into the water imagine the media coverage they would die of a heart attack ! That would be some statement

That would be perfect ammunition for the West proving their point about Chinese military expansionism in the Indo-Pacific region toppling the decades of stable balance (i.e. US total dominance). I wouldn't do that but would in fact rather commission everything as quietly as possible...

 

[asif iqbal]

That would be perfect ammunition for the West proving their point about Chinese military expansionism in the Indo-Pacific region toppling the decades of stable balance (i.e. US total dominance). I wouldn't do that but would in fact rather commission everything as quietly as possible...

That will happen anyway

And they did launch 3 warships before Type 071, Type 815 and Type 054A

But I agree it wouldn’t be good advertisement

 

[Tam]

I am not questioning the wisdom of some level of subsidy and other tools of national policy in order to maintain strategically sensitive capabilities like naval shipbuilding. But the appropriate level of subsidy and corresponding scale of the national industry are open questions. Look at this way: why does China not subsidise shipbuilding at far higher levels? Why not have even more shipyards with more workers churning out more ships? The obvious answer is that, at some point, enough is enough, and that more shipyards and more workers would not meaningfully further the nation's strategic interests.

China is a country with an enormous domestic market and corresponding economies of scale, and low wages (compared to US, Europe, Japan, SK). Unlike European nations, China is not in any danger of losing strategically sensitive industrial capacity or skillsets. So what is the point of the current level of subsidy? The argument was previously made that China is providing additional demand in the form of naval contracts to protect the shipbuilding industry during a period of weak demand. But as I said before, it is now 2018, not 2009, and this rationale no longer makes sense. Or is it that China is actively attempting to expand its shipbuilding industry to pressure the industries of other nations and emerge as one of the dominant players in the market? If so, fine -- but that would favour investment in large yards with their economies of scale, not small ones.

You have to distinguish between state owned and privately owned enterprises when it comes to shipyards. The ones they are obviously supporting are state owned and part of a larger ship building group like CSSC. Private yards don't do warships and are strictly commercial produce.

As for 'domestic' market, this isn't like the airplane and the car business --- much of the ship building industry caters to the international. The most obvious and most common destination between large cargo ships is one international port to another. There are domestic to domestic port but that competes against the trucking business.

And of course it continues in 2018. The shipbuilding downturn is still there. It started around 2016 and still goes on. Hyundai Shipbuilding Industries laid off workers last year.

China emerging as one of the dominant players the market? China has been the number one builder in the world since the turn of this decade, upending South Korea. But I don't think what they're doing is about that.

What they are doing is about keeping jobs. Enterprises can survive but in doing so they will cut jobs at harder times. Giving these enterprises contracts keeps those jobs busy, and keeping those jobs also keeps the economy active and prevents its from sliding down further, and putting it in a better position for recovery. There are Keynesian aspects at play here.

But at the end of the day, if it is true that China's recent shipbuilding spree in fact reflects not military commitments, but economic-industrial ones, then that only reinforces my argument that we should focus on warship commissioning dates, not launch dates, to get a sense of where PLAN is going and how fast it is going there.

What ships are being made tells you where they are going, and how fast they are being commissioned tells you how fast they are going there. But then even if the PLAN's commissioning rate remains fairly normal, they have a problem other navies would envy, and that's a backlog of shiny new ships. Do note they are commissioning ships at twice the rate of the US Navy, which last year, is around 16 vs. 8. And that's faster than anyone in the world by spades.

Not everything the United States does is about China. In fact, most things aren't about China. Just as most of what China does is not about the United States.

​

Trump made many campaign statements including about China dumping steel and costing American jobs. That part is way obvious, and it now seems to be fake news, harming the USA's neighbors and allies instead.

 

[Tam]

That would be perfect ammunition for the West proving their point about Chinese military expansionism in the Indo-Pacific region toppling the decades of stable balance (i.e. US total dominance). I wouldn't do that but would in fact rather commission everything as quietly as possible...

Too late for that with all the artificial islands they are making.

 

[kurutoga]

Did you know that US only imported less than one million metric tons of Chinese steel last year, about 3% of total imported steel by value? In fact, Taiwan, which is not exactly known for its steel industry, exported more steel to the U.S. than China did, at 4% of total value. South Korea accounted for around 10%, and Japan another 7% or so. Canada is by far the largest exporter of steel to the U.S..

It was said that the Chinese steel was sent to Korea/Japan/Vietnam then processed further before shipping to US, this is to bypass the existing Chinese steel import restrictions. So the impact on Chinese steel industry might be larger than what the direct China/US import numbers suggest.

 

[latenlazy]

So what is the point of the current level of subsidy? The argument was previously made that China is providing additional demand in the form of naval contracts to protect the shipbuilding industry during a period of weak demand. But as I said before, it is now 2018, not 2009, and this rationale no longer makes sense. Or is it that China is actively attempting to expand its shipbuilding industry to pressure the industries of other nations and emerge as one of the dominant players in the market? If so, fine -- but that would favour investment in large yards with their economies of scale, not small ones.

I think the term “subsidy” might imply the wrong policy rationale. I suspect draw down of stock generated from overcapacity is the acute problem being addressed here. If you’ve already churned out all that excess steel, you might as well use it or you lose it, especially if it’s stuff you were going to procure sooner or later.