How China’s $100B+ Shipbuilding Empire Dominates the U.S.’s | WSJ U.S. vs. China

《华尔街日报》美国vs中国：中国价值1000亿美元的造船帝国是如何超越美国的

China has transformed into a shipbuilding powerhouse over the past two decades, cementing its status as a major maritime power. In 2023, more than half of the world’s commercial shipbuilding came from China, while the U.S. accounted for less than 1%.

WSJ takes a look at the strategies that led to this growth and examines where the U.S. stands as naval competition heats up.

在过去的二十年里，中国已经崛起为一个造船强国，巩固了其作为主要海洋大国的地位。2023年，全球商用造船一半以上来自中国，而美国占比不到1%。

《华尔街日报》探讨导致这种增长的战略，以及随着海军竞争的加剧，美国所处的位置。

以下是外国网友的评论：

user-gx4jb8kc1t

this story failed to mention US never achieve market dominant in commercial ship building cause the quality and cost simply not competitive on a global scale

没有提到美国从来没有在商业造船中占据市场主导地位，因为质量和成本在全球范围内根本没有竞争力

glennalexon1530

That’s an industry, not an empire. Read a book, WSJ.

这是一个行业，不是一个帝国，多读书吧，《华尔街日报》。

taipizzalord4463

You cannot talk about US ship without talking about the Jones Act.

谈到美国造船业，就不能不谈到《琼斯法案》。

KingOfNaraka

Is the US going to complain about China over-capacity on ship building, too?

美国又要抱怨中国造船产能过剩吗?

alastairclarke

How are salaries/ wages completely absent from this story? This work in the USA is heavily unionized and workers are making +$100,000 USD salaries. (Personally, I think this is positive.) Average shipyard salary in Shanghai is ~$10,000 USD. So CSSC can hire 12 to 20 workers for the same $ as 1 worker in California. Of course they're going to be able to build more!

为什么完全没有提到薪水和工资？

在美国，这个行业的工作是高度工会化的，工人的工资是10万美元以上。

上海造船厂的平均工资约为1万美元。

因此，相同的工资，中船重工可以雇佣12到20名工人，而在加州只能雇佣1名工人的。他们当然可以造更多船

dusty7264

We won WW2 because of our manufacturing, we built , tanks, planes and warships for England, Russia and the allies. In the 60s we sent manufacturing overseas so companies could make massive profits. I remember the bumper stickers that said buy American before it’s too late, well it’s to late

我们赢得二战归功于我们当时强大的制造业，我们为英国、俄罗斯和盟国建造了坦克、飞机和军舰。

在60年代，我们把制造业转移到海外，这样公司就能获得巨额利润。

我记得汽车保险杠上的贴纸上写着：买美国货，趁现在还来得及，好吧，现在太迟了

chillstep4life

The real problem is China main focus is always on the commercial side. While US main focus is military. One actually makes economic sense, while the other just drains the tax payers.

真正的问题是，中国的主要关注点总是在商业方面，而美国主要关注的是军事。前者确实具有经济意义，后者只是消耗纳税人的钱。

zY8xN6tQ2mL4

Shipbuilding industry is an interesting one, which is Capital, Technology/Engineering and Labor intensive simultaneously and you know which three the US misses. Unlike what WSJ portrayed, the commercial ship building center transitioned from Europe->Japan->South Korea and now (partially) China. US never dominates it and is always MIC driven.

造船业是一个有趣的行业，是资本、技术/工程和劳动密集型行业，你知道美国错过了哪三个行业。

与《华尔街日报》所描述的不同，商业造船中心从欧洲-日本--韩国，现在(部分)是中国。美国从来没有主导过这个行业，一直是MIC驱动的。

SpazzyMcGee1337

The Jones Act was meant as an indirect subsidy to the American ship building industry. Without the direct subsidies we neither have our cake nor eat it.

The US Government needs to decide, either end the Jones act (thereby reinvigorating domestic water trade) or resume subsidies to ship building (which would by ludicrously costly).

《琼斯法案》是给美国造船业间接补贴，没有直接补贴，我们鱼与熊掌不可兼得。

美国政府需要做出决定，要么终止琼斯法案，从而重振国内水贸，要么恢复对造船业的补贴

michaele4830

For over 200 yrs the sun never set on the British Empire but it does. For US, it is at the edge of 200 yrs. For China it is just the begng of a 200 yrs cycle.

200多年，大英帝国的太阳从未下山，但现在确实下山了。对美国来说，它正处于200年的边缘。对中国来说，这只是一个200年周期的开始。

nesseihtgnay9419

People keep saying that the US have a better quality of warship but people forget that quantity is a quality all on its own. The number can overwhelm US warships

人们一直说美国的军舰质量更好，但人们忘记了数量本身就是一种质量。中国军舰的数量足以压倒美国军舰

SouthernIg

South Korea: We can produce some ships for you, U.S.

韩国：美国，我们可以为你们造一些船

wenling3487

If USA does not spend $3 trillion for wars in the past 2 decades, USA can have a decent shipbuilding industry

如果美国在过去20年没有花那3万亿美元打仗，美国现在可以有一个像样的造船业

brandonso

If the "world's greatest de ocracy" weren't so obsessed with waging war and having military bases on every continent, it might be capable of making a microwave oven, or a TV.

如果这个“世界上最伟大的民 主国家”不那么沉迷于发动战争，在每个大陆都建军事基地，它可能有能力制造微波炉或电视。

halo7250

In short, size does matter. Even an elephant can be killed by millions of fire ants attacking it all at once.  If China were to use its shipyards to manufacture cheap AI-powered kamikaze submersible drones at breakneck speed, a 200x difference in production capacity would be a significant advantage. Even the most advanced US ships would be vulnerable to wave upon wave of drone attacks, which could potentially sink the carrier group near China water.  China's military production output is what the USA used to be, and potentially even larger than the USA ever was during WW2 in comparison.

简而言之，规模确实很重要。即使是一头大象也会被数百万只火蚁同时攻击而死亡。

如果中国利用其造船厂以惊人的速度制造廉价的AI驱动潜水无人机，那么200倍的产能差距将是一个显著的优势。

即使是最先进的美国军舰也容易受到一波又一波的无人机攻击，这可能会使航母战斗群在中国水域附近沉没。

中国的军事产能相当于美国过去的水平，甚至可能比二战期间的美国还要大。

Sara_Kuster

China don't know producing items in small quantities

中国不懂小批量生产

royk7712

Shipbuilding industry is not just about ship. It's entire industrial chain from steel to ship. There's hundreds of supplier is needed to support 1 shipyard. You can actually link comprehensive national strength with ship or aircraft manufacturing capability. United States has aircraft advantages now.

造船业不仅仅是造船，涉及从钢铁到船舶的整个产业链，需要数百家供应商来支持一个造船厂。

实际上，你可以把综合国力与船舶或飞机制造能力联系起来。美国现在在造飞机方面有优势。

davidanalyst671

Britain had the largest navy in the world until they stopped being the superpower....

英国海军曾经是世界上最大规模的海军，一直维持到他们不再是超级大国....

nguyenphucdang4567

We let go of a few industries in exchange for higher salary and standard of living, and that's a good thing.

American ships should be built by Japanese and Korean

我们放弃了一些行业，以换取更高的工资和生活水平，这是一件好事。

美国军舰应该让日本人和韩国人建造

nnf9431

China is going to come out for 4 nuclear powered type 004 carriers by 2030

到2030年，中国将推出4艘004型核动力航母

morrismak

They forgot about supply chain. For all this to work, a robust supply chain and logistics to the the parts to the shipyard timely and efficiently as possible

他们忘了供应链。造船业需要强大的供应链和物流，将零件及时有效地送到造船厂

steve8421

Stop building multi-billion $ aircraft carriers and expensive Burke destroyers. Build many lesser expensive but  capable frigates.  Buy 1,000s of AGM183A hypersonic air launched long-range anti-ship missiles instead. They can be launched from extended range from a variety of planes.

停止建造耗资数十亿美元的航空母舰和昂贵的伯克级驱逐舰。

多建造一些造价较低但性能良好的护卫舰。

购买1000枚AGM183A高超音速空射远程反舰导弹，它们可以从各种飞机上远距离发射。

scipioafricanus4875

China appears to be the number one economic power house

中国似乎是头号经济强国了

michaele4830

Even if US wanted to upgrade or build boats, it cannot. Where are the manpower to build the boats? Maybe, refugees from South American or Philippines.

即使美国想升级或建造船只，它也做不到。造船的人力在哪里？也许是来自南美或菲律宾的难民。

danysl2008

Anything that US can’t do, must be China’s faults. Sounds so familiar these days.

任何美国做不到的事情，一定是中国的错，这话现在听起来很耳熟。

themiddlekingdom9121

China is produced the most steel on earth that why the Chinese are able to build ships very fast, vertical intergration.

中国是世界上生产钢铁最多的国家，这就是为什么中国人能够非常快速地建造船舶，垂直整合。

houseplant1016

The funny thing is that America did it to itself. You signed treaties and got China in the WTO and invested in it, thinking that trading and making them richer would result in a friendlier China.

有趣的是，这是美国自己造成的。是你签署条约，让中国加入世贸组织，并在中国投资，天真地以为贸易让他们富起来后，中国会更友好。

zacharyferreira2469

Hull count is not how naval power is measured. Tonnage matters.

舰艇数量并不是衡量海军力量的标准，吨位至关重要。

horridohobbies

The USA is hopelessly behind China in shipbuilding capability. It simply cannot provide enough funding to allow the USA to catch up to China. Let's remember that the USA has a $35 trillion national debt (growing by $1 trillion every 100 days).

美国在造船能力上无可救药地落后于中国，缺乏足够的资金，无法赶上中国。记住，美国欠了35万亿美元的国债(每100天增长1万亿美元)。

southkoreausasmaster8805

In the final analysis, it is the institutional problems of the United States that have led to the United States’ failure against China in various fields.

归根结底，是美国的制度问题导致了美国在各个领域败给中国。

khansaeed9999

Remember quality over quantity

记住，质量比数量更重要