Leveraging foreign contracts, dual-use infrastructure and industrial policy, China’s state-backed shipbuilding juggernaut is fast outpacing the US Navy as it struggles with declining shipyards and strategic uncertainty.
This month, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a report detailing how China has become the world’s leader in shipbuilding, threatening US naval superiority in the Asia-Pacific and beyond.
According to the report, China has leveraged industrial policy and military-civil fusion (MCF) to integrate commercial and naval production. CSIS says the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), the world’s largest shipbuilder, has blurred the lines between civilian and military sectors, fueling the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) expansion while benefiting from foreign contracts and capital.
The report states China’s shipbuilding network operates under a tiered structure, with high-risk CSSC-owned yards producing commercial vessels and warships often funded by international clients.
It points out that over 75% of ships from these yards are sold to foreign buyers, indirectly subsidizing China’s naval build-up. It says that European and Asian firms, including Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine, have de facto funneled billions into CSSC’s dual-use infrastructure.
The CSIS report mentions foreign entanglements extend beyond ship orders. It points out that Western firms have supplied critical technologies, such as marine engines, gas turbines and liquid natural gas (LNG) carrier designs, enabling China to overcome key military-industrial hurdles. It also says Chinese shipbuilders still access global financial markets, securing foreign capital despite US sanctions.
Putting figures on China’s shipbuilding dominance over the US, an August 2024 US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report assesses that China has 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the US, enabling it to have the world’s largest navy. China’s battle force comprises 370 ships and submarines, with more than 140 major combatants, according to the 2024 US Department of Defense (DOD) China Military Power report.
In contrast, US Senator Roger Wicker mentioned in a May 2024 hearing before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee that the US Navy is too small and old to meet the demands of US combat commanders and national defense strategy. As of March 2025, the US Naval Vessel Register (NVR) says the US has 295 ships, far smaller than the PLAN.
Outlining the PLAN’s possible fleet size growth trajectory, US Senator Dan Sullivan said in the same hearing that by 2025, the PLAN will have 395 ships and will grow to 435 ships by 2030 – 141 more than the US Navy.
That places the US Navy in a precarious strategic situation. In a January 2023 article in Proceedings, Sam Tangredi argues that historical evidence from 28 naval conflicts shows fleet size often outweighs technological advantages.
Tangredi points out that in 25 cases the larger fleet emerged victorious, suggesting that sheer mass frequently outweighs short-lived technological advantages. He asserts that greater numbers enhance scouting capability, flexibility and striking power, as demonstrated in the Napoleonic Wars and World War II periods.
He points out that strategies like the US Navy’s 600-ship Cold War plan reflect these principles, while smaller, tech-savvy forces typically failed to compensate for being outnumbered.
On how US naval shipbuilding declined, Peter Lee mentions in a 2024 Asan Institute for Policy Studies report that US naval shipbuilding faces chronic delays, with major programs such as the Ford-class aircraft carrier and Virginia-class submarines running years behind schedule. Lee says a dwindling labor force and inconsistent government demand have exacerbated the problem.
He also notes that US commercial shipbuilding has collapsed, currently accounting for less than 1% of global output. Lee says it has been crippled by the century-old Jones Act, which inflates domestic shipping costs while stifling competitiveness.
He says China’s shipbuilding dominance is backed by aggressive state subsidies, a strategy the US has resisted. Lee mentions that while protectionist laws prevent outsourcing naval shipbuilding, deregulation in the 1980s decimated the private sector, forcing reliance on foreign-built vessels.
The US has three options to reverse this trend: revamping its shipbuilding industry, utilizing unmanned platforms or tapping comparatively robust allied shipyards in Japan and South Korea. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
The Trump administration unveiled the “Make Shipbuilding Great Again” initiative in February 2025 to rejuvenate the US shipbuilding industry at China’s expense. The program requires a comprehensive maritime action plan that a new White House maritime office will manage within six months.
Key elements of the plan include tax incentives, a Maritime Security Trust Fund and maritime opportunity zones. It also aims to reform acquisition processes and tackle workforce issues, including by raising wages for shipyard workers.
However, in a February 2025 US Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing, Wicker says that pouring money into US shipbuilding woes won’t work, as the US doesn’t have the industrial base to support a surge in shipbuilding.
Moreover, a January 2025 US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report mentions that the US Navy’s 2025 shipbuilding plan faces significant challenges due to escalating costs and production delays.
The report says while the US Navy aims to expand its fleet to 390 ships by 2054, aging shipyards will struggle to meet demand. It adds that labor shortages, supply chain disruptions and rising material costs hinder progress.
Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) provide an economical solution for fleet expansion, allowing budget-constrained navies to deploy swarms of attack drones. Their ability to scale and enhance distributed lethality complements manned vessels make them more difficult for enemies to target while improving fleet resilience.
At the same time, harsh maritime conditions lead to faster mechanical wear. The fact that these vehicles depend on external communication links also makes them vulnerable to jamming and hacking, especially in scenarios dominated by electronic warfare.
Unlike crewed warships, they do not possess the endurance, firepower and versatility necessary for extended combat operations.
In March 2024, Voice of America (VOA) reported that the US is looking to South Korea and Japan, the world’s second and third-largest shipbuilding countries after China, to revive US shipbuilding. According to VOA, US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro has recently visited shipyards in South Korea and Japan to meet shipbuilding executives.
Del Toro’s visit shows that the US has trouble building warships and that working closely with allies to build more warships or offload some maintenance tasks could help, the VOA report said.
However, Matthew Paxton argues in a March 2024 Defense News article that outsourcing US shipbuilding would further weaken the US industrial base, sideline US workers and undermine US sovereignty by ceding the ability to build ships to other states.
Paxton questions the usefulness of outsourcing US shipbuilding to allies when many of the shipbuilding capabilities touted by Del Toro during his visit to South Korea and Japan can be found in the US. But if the US fails to revive its shipbuilding industry, it risks ceding naval dominance to China, whose relentless expansion shows no signs of abating.
I’m Chinese.I think there are factors why Chinese advanced in some manufacturing areas.
1.educated workers.we studied hard in schools and working hard.it’s a long and profund traditional values.to be responsible.responsible to your role.whoever you are whatever you do.parents work hard to nurture children.children help parents and study hard.fulfill your job requirement cause you should nurture your children well…that’s why there are few rob.steal.rape.homeless…in the society.
2.government plannings.it’s a big deal no private can afford.which needs determination. Tremendous funds.The ability to bear losses.Long-term persistence……rare abilities private companies and individuals have.
3.in the end.why west world so worrying and afraid of China?I think there are tremendous misunderstandings.you will know China is the most mild group hate war and Head-on conflict，which determined by our culture.we can be a peaceful and stable power.
Americans should contract the Chinese to build ships for them; cheaper and better.
Lack of patience and long term planning are obvious reasons that US will fail to re-build shipbuilding industry. It took China more than 4 decades to build, step by step, the industry, involving metal refining, education, technology upgrades, etc. Besides some smart lawyers write up fancy policies, I have not seen any effort in beefing up tech skills of the work force, or beefing up education in overall shipbuilding technology. When another election comes, priority will change. Shipbuilding will be forgotten.
DOGE should look into why the Chinese Navy primarily patrols waters in East Asia, where it happens to be located, and never sails up and down the West coast of North America. At the same time, the US Navy is a big waste machine sailing around not only in East Asia but in every ocean and sea planet-wide. There must be a lot of money going down THAT grubhole.
My questions INSTEAD of Mr. Putin, to Mr. Trump:
1. Who did not disband NATO after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?
2. Did U.S. presidents in the last 20 years want to disconnect Europe from cheap Russian energy out of fear that Eurasia would economically destroy the U.S.?
3. Through their policies, did the U.S. push its ally, the EU, into a situation where it no longer has access to cheap raw materials from Russia and Asia, and now EU politicians are furious, pushing for war against Russia while rejecting a trade war with the U.S.?
4. Does Russia have the right to claim the entire territory of Ukraine, both for security reasons and because Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries?
5. Do Russia and China have the right to form a Eurasian defense pact with Asian countries as a counterbalance to NATO?
6. Do BRICS and other countries in the world have the right to create their own global trade currency and financial system to compete with SWIFT?
1. All the Warsaw Pact countries (CzS, Poland, Hu etc) begged to join NATO. So did the Balts. I wonder why.
2. No it was only Trump that warned Germany. But the gas still kept flowing.
3. EU is full of hypocrites. They should have supported Ukr 3yrs ago to the full.
4. Ireland was also part of Britain for longer. 100yrs ago the Irish decided they wanted to be independent.
5. Of course. But who would join? Japan, SKorea, Viet, etc. China has border disputes with all it it’s neighbors.
6. Of course they do, and African dictators are welcome to buy a mansion in Peking or Moskau instead of NY or London.
In the last year of the one child policy, there were a scratch under 19 million births.
Less than a decade later, there’s 9 million.
Of those nine million, over half are second or third children.
So in less than a decade, the number of people deciding to become parents has dropped by between two thirds and three quarters.
If that isn’t collapse, what is?
The collapse in birthrates that took Japan 32 years took the PRC 3
Quak Quak Quak… Then China’s ship building industry dominates the US 200 to 1.
You are quaking like an Indian. The more you quak, the more china wins. Time to use toilets.
Yes, fleet size often outweighs technological advantages and US navy does not have technological advantages against China.
Chinese have very small weapons. Like Mao in Nanking when they see the larger weapons they will run away
Coping again?
He’s quaking again. Quaking like an Indian. They quak, and never get anything done.
Squealing like a Capon.
I do love it when you talk dirty about Indians! Showing your insecurity.
I’m part of the herrenvolk !
so now he’s saying that he’s not only Indian, he’s also gay.