Chinese shipbuilding industry

R

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
Name one country that is self-sufficient in every aspect of precision manufacturing. USA? No. Germany? No. japan? No. There is no country. Any country that tries to be total self-sufficient will not remain advanced, or efficient, for very long. Not only will they not remain advanced if they try, their effort will fail.

The cold hard truth that every ignorant rabid nationalist and idiot protectionist will try to deny is Richardo’s Law of comparative advantage. Countries become advanced and efficient not by doing everything well. Countries become advanced and efficient not even by doing everything in which it enjoys some competitive advantage well. Cointries become advanced and efficient by doing well only select things in which the country enjoys the greatest advantage.

This is the fundamental reason why trade enriches the world and makes the pie bigger. The fundamental reason why trade enriches is it allows each partner to focus only on those things in which that partner enjoys the greatest comparative advantage. This allows all things to be done only by those who do that thing most efficiently and at the least overall cost.
 
Last edited:
O

Orthan

Senior Member
Richard Santos said:
Name one country that is self-sufficient in every aspect of precision manufacturing.
Click to expand...

We are not taling about civilian market. We are talking military technology. A nation that wants to be an independent power from the west must rely on its technology for its military industry, otherwise it could well be cut off in the future.

Again, does anyone knows or has an idea if china imports the steel it uses for its submarines and aircraft carriers?
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
Name one country that is self-sufficient in every aspect of precision manufacturing. USA? No. Germany? No. japan? No. There is no country. Any country that tries to be total self-sufficient will not remain advanced, or efficient, for very long. Not only will they not remain advanced if they try, their effort will fail.

The cold hard truth that every ignorant rabid nationalist and idiot protectionist will try to deny is Richardo’s Law of comparative advantage. Countries become advanced and efficient not by doing everything well. Countries become advanced and efficient not even by doing everything in which it enjoys some competitive advantage well. Cointries become advanced and efficient by doing well only select things in which the country enjoys the greatest advantage.

This is the fundamental reason why trade enriches the world and makes the pie bigger. The fundamental reason why trade enriches is it allows each partner to focus only on those things in which that partner enjoys the greatest comparative advantage. This allows all things to be done only by those who do that thing most efficiently and at the least overall cost.
Click to expand...

A couple of points.

If China was a wealthy hi-tech country, it would have a population and economy larger than all of today's developed countries (North America, Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, etc)

So theoretically China could sustain a more competitive marketplace (in terms of producers and consumers) across the entire range of industries. For example in the aviation industry, the Chinese market alone would be able to support a Chinese Airbus, a Chinese Boeing, a Chinese Bombardier and a Chinese Embraer. All at the same time.

Of course, we're nowhere near this situation yet.

And yes, it would be more beneficial for everyone if there was a larger single global market where everyone specialises in what they do best.

So on balance, it would be in China's interest to create a single global market, as its companies would likely be the largest and also the most efficient.

And a final point on comparative advantage, and some of the latest thinking on this.

Suppose one side had a huge surplus of low-skilled workers, highly-skilled workers, capital, factories etc. Theoretically that side could capture all the economic gains from a two-way trading relationship in the short-term, at least until their costs (dependent on wages, land, exchange rate etc) increased sufficiently to make comparative advantage work again for both parties.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Orthan said:
This is an article from asia times that mentions that china is unable to produce the highest quality of steel and that the steel used in submarines, aircraft carriers (and even high-speed railways and bridges) are imported from the US, germany, japan and russia.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


What do you think of this?
Click to expand...

The part of about China importing 60kg/m steel rail for Chinese high speed railways is definitely not correct. China almost certainly produces more than the rest of the world combined.

Ditto for bridges, since we see bridge sections being exported to the US.

Such an elemental error makes the claims about submarines and aircraft carriers unlikely.
 
R

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
Orthan said:
We are not taling about civilian market. We are talking military technology. A nation that wants to be an independent power from the west must rely on its technology for its military industry, otherwise it could well be cut off in the future.

Again, does anyone knows or has an idea if china imports the steel it uses for its submarines and aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...


How many of the chips in the F-35 is made abroad, some probably in china?

How many of the fasteners and adhesives used in the F-22 Is made abroad?

How much of the components in the US Arsenal is actually beyond america’s Industry to produce at the moment?

I bet these numbers are much bigger than you might imagine.
 
Last edited:
R

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
A couple of points.

If China was a wealthy hi-tech country, it would have a population and economy larger than all of today's developed countries (North America, Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, etc)

So theoretically China could sustain a more competitive marketplace (in terms of producers and consumers) across the entire range of industries. For example in the aviation industry, the Chinese market alone would be able to support a Chinese Airbus, a Chinese Boeing, a Chinese Bombardier and a Chinese Embraer. All at the same time.

Of course, we're nowhere near this situation yet.

And yes, it would be more beneficial for everyone if there was a larger single global market where everyone specialises in what they do best.

So on balance, it would be in China's interest to create a single global market, as its companies would likely be the largest and also the most efficient.

And a final point on comparative advantage, and some of the latest thinking on this.

Suppose one side had a huge surplus of low-skilled workers, highly-skilled workers, capital, factories etc. Theoretically that side could capture all the economic gains from a two-way trading relationship in the short-term, at least until their costs (dependent on wages, land, exchange rate etc) increased sufficiently to make comparative advantage work again for both parties.
Click to expand...


If you think just because China is the largest it ought to be the most efficient in everything. You might have some trouble explaining why the Swiss seem to retain advantage in areas over USA.

You also totally missed the underlying principle of Richardo’s law. It doesn’t even matter if you really are the most efficient in everything. You should still give up on making things in which your margin of advantage over the second most efficient producer is less than other products, buy those things from the second most efficient producer, and focus instead on making those things where your margin of superiority in efficiency is the greatest. Only then are you truly maximizing the value of your advantage, as well as maximizing both the total pie, and your slice of it.

Trade is advantageous, buying somethings things from other people is advantageous, even if you really are better than everyone else in everything.

This is the subtle and central truth of Richardo’s law of comparative advantage that flies right over the head of dim witted nationalists and idiot autarchists, and Donald Trump.
 
PiSigma

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Orthan said:
We are not taling about civilian market. We are talking military technology. A nation that wants to be an independent power from the west must rely on its technology for its military industry, otherwise it could well be cut off in the future.

Again, does anyone knows or has an idea if china imports the steel it uses for its submarines and aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...
China uses all domestic steal for all military programs. The ore may be imported. When the 017 was launched, there were reports on CCTV that specifically said all steel are manufactured in China.

Atimes is one of the worse "news" sites out there, mostly opinions that I consider BS. A few good authors that are left keeps me going back. But the glory days from 10 years ago is long gone.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Hendrik_2000 said:
China's first permanent magnet naval propulsion engine, designed by CSIC 712th, was successfully tested on a ship on October 18th.
I have no doubt it will find application in Submarine propulsion in conjunction with IEPS specially in submarine where space is at premium and having high efficiency over large load range is premium in Sub operation resulting in longer range specially if diesel fueled
PM machines have the ability to function efficiently at low speeds and throughout the entire load range. In vessels where all energy is produced by fuel, a lower consumption leads to an improved operational range and lower operational costs.
Click to expand...

I think the reality is more promising. The original Chinese language report used word "艇" (loosely boat) instead of "舰" or "船" (both are ships). It is almost certain that the trail was on a submarine because only submarine and torpedo/missile vessels are called "艇"/boat in PLAN, and the later two can be certainly excluded as they are so tinny to worth the trouble to use PMM or to worth to mention as a major achievement.

The only thing uncertain is whether that "艇" is nuclear or conventional.

3rd (2nd) generation IEPS is confirmed to be used in the next generation nuclear submarine by Ma Weiming in the TV interview. However, this IEPS only confirms the usage of a DC motor which can be either DC induction, DC synchronous or DC PMM because by Ma Weiming's definition of IEPS generation this IEPS (高速 high speed 集成 integrated 感应 induction 发供电 electricity generation/transportation) is DC all the way to the appliances.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Orthan said:
This is an article from asia times that mentions that china is unable to produce the highest quality of steel and that the steel used in submarines, aircraft carriers (and even high-speed railways and bridges) are imported from the US, germany, japan and russia.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


What do you think of this?
Click to expand...
short thought, Troll

longer one, where is the export control of material of military application? I suggest you to contact the DoC and DoD of US, or their counterparts in Germany and Japan instead of putting up these BS (I mean the article). asia times has such low standard that it does not worth people's time here in SDF.

Don't make it sound like "China is way behind because we don't export something, then China is advancing ONLY because we export something." Do you or do you not sell such "something" to China? You can NOT do both.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
If you think just because China is the largest it ought to be the most efficient in everything. You might have some trouble explaining why the Swiss seem to retain advantage in areas over USA.

You also totally missed the underlying principle of Richardo’s law. It doesn’t even matter if you really are the most efficient in everything. You should still give up on making things in which your margin of advantage over the second most efficient producer is less than other products, buy those things from the second most efficient producer, and focus instead on making those things where your margin of superiority in efficiency is the greatest. Only then are you truly maximizing the value of your advantage, as well as maximizing both the total pie, and your slice of it.

Trade is advantageous, buying somethings things from other people is advantageous, even if you really are better than everyone else in everything.

This is the subtle and central truth of Richardo’s law of comparative advantage that flies right over the head of dim witted nationalists and idiot autarchists, and Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

No, my argument is that China's producers would be operating in the world's largest and also its most competitive market. That is what would drive China's companies to be the best or the lowest cost.

I agree that comparative advantage is theoretically the most efficient means of organising production. However, it does have its flaws. See below for a description.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the case of China, we've seen China being the lowest cost producer in most categories, yet China could still produce even more, as there isn't enough demand to soak up that spare capacity which cannot be deployed to any other use. So China might as well produce items where it has an absolute cost advantage, but not a comparative one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top