I think
@Iron Man has a point ( actually,points). Two of which i'd like to comment on -
1.US ships cannot be compared in the sense that they are presumed to be quality wise superior. Many US ships(all carriers) undergo Shock trials which see charges detonated (underwater) near the ships and resulting effects on the ships studied ( damage to structure, electronics etc). It is a very risky and costly process( one reason why G.R.Ford Carrier was "allowed" to postpone it). The reasoning that US equipment are quality wise superior and therefore cannot be effectively compared with Chinese components are not entirely based on emotions/pride/jingoism etc. It would be very wrong to ignore or discredit the very time consuming and comprehensive Q&A process that US has established , over three quarters century of experience, to ensure tip top shape of its overused Navy.
2. Competition is rife within the Military Industrial Complex. Billion dollar mega-Corporations compete to win the Billion Dollar ( Trillion dollars even) military contracts. It would be really ignorant to judge the products of these corporations, which depend upon a network of universities, partners,suppliers and R&D establishments both within and outside United States, as technologically/quality wise/performance wise lacking. (They don't turn out to be top of the line, all the time, either.They aren't perfect and can be outdone)
There has risen, evidently, over the past two decades, a situation, where the US can be seen expending a lot for achieving less. I am quite confident to the position that the US Military Industrial Complex has become a huge cash drain for the country. Oligarchic and even Monopolistic hold on the supply of certain military equipment ( actually, every military equipment/subsystem) has seen very bad "Bang-for-Buck" products get delivered to the Pentagon. The costs escalate while the quality and some improvements "claimed" to be made are questionable and even gimmicky from a military robustness and reliability point of view. It'd make really good "PowerPoint presentation" material though.
I'd like to comment further but ...i hope people get it. It is quite eye opening to see that unbridled capitalism itself is the enemy here. Corporations are robbing America in broad daylight.
All is NOT sunshine and rainbows in Pentagonville.
But, speaking for the Chinese Navy...It would be amiss to ignore
its Q&A process for military components, subsystems and equipment too. Every Navy that takes itself seriously will engage in Q&A validation for its components. China too has a developing network of military-university R&D centers. The engineers produced are very fine and extremely competent. The fruits of their labor has started to show but will take some more time. All depends upon the budget allocation on R&D as well as on military spending. Chinese state media running columns on "civilian-military" cooperation is quite telling. On the topic of Chinese Navy, we have seen many experimental technologies, secret projects, investments etc. ( sailless subs, railguns, EMALS, Gas turbines, radars etc) All these show a vibrant and up-and-coming Naval Technological surge in the PRC.
I'd argue that PLAN is very competent, technology-wise. I'd even wager that China is simply superior to every other country other than US in comprehensive military technological capabilities in the
naval realm.
On the PPP-GDP discussion.
Since China has become rather self sufficient in military technologies (largely) , i think PPP would be the better figure to be used. Not just the PPP but the close cooperation and coordination of SOEs ought to also limit the expenditure on the military.
There are less leaks in the pipes. Procurement costs can indeed be cut. Procurement can be made much more streamlined and efficient. Also Don't forget China's choke-hold on the world's rare earth supply required for advanced military equipment (seekers, sensors, chips etc). I'd think that the Chinese military industrial complex isn't exactly gloomy at the moment. They are smiling and energetic.