Commentary

Opinion | As China modernises its navy, the US races to stay ahead

March 20, 2025

COMMENTARY BY:

Picture of Nong Hong
Nong Hong

Executive Director & Senior Fellow

Cover Image Source: Getty Images

 

Lawmakers in the United States are making a strategic push to revive its shipbuilding industry through the “Save Our Shipyards Act”, signalling a renewed focus on maritime strength amid growing geopolitical competition. This effort reflects increasing concerns over China’s expanding naval capabilities, Russia’s Arctic defence fortification and the importance of securing global trade routes and strategic chokepoints.

China’s naval build-up has turned the Indo-Pacific into a key strategic priority for US planners. According to the US Defence Department, the Chinese navy operates the world’s largest fleet with an overall battle force of about 350 combat vessels, including advanced aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines. This growing blue-water capability is seen as a significant challenge to US maritime dominance in the Pacific and beyond.

Russia, meanwhile, has strengthened its military presence in the Arctic, reopening Soviet-era bases and deploying new submarines to the glacial region. Moscow’s modernisation of its Northern Fleet reflects its strategy to control Arctic shipping routes and secure its resource claims.
 
The protection of global trade routes is a stated priority for the US Navy. Critical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Malacca Strait and the Suez Canal are vulnerable to disruption from geopolitical instability. A larger, more capable US fleet would bolster maritime security and protect these vital arteries of global commerce.

Military and security needs have also driven the US to reassess its naval capacity. The US Navy’s current fleet of around 290 ships is considered insufficient to meet the demands of a two-theatre strategy – simultaneously countering China in the Indo-Pacific and Russia in the Arctic and North Atlantic. The Pentagon’s latest shipbuilding plan aims to expand the fleet to over 350 ships by the early 2040s, with a focus on destroyers, attack submarines and unmanned surface vessels.

Revitalising the US shipbuilding industry also serves economic and strategic goals. The Trump administration’s “America first” policy includes measures to bolster domestic shipbuilders, such as imposing significant port fees on Chinese-built vessels. This move aims to reduce reliance on foreign-built ships and stimulate domestic production. However, industry leaders warn that such measures could lead to increased costs for US consumers and potential disruptions in supply chains.

Supply chain security is also a driving factor. The US aims to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers for critical ship components, including steel and hi-tech systems. Building domestic capacity would enhance strategic independence and ensure resilience in future conflicts.

Recent agreements with allies reflect a broader strategy to strengthen shipbuilding capacity through international collaboration. In July 2024, the US, Canada and Finland established the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort or Ice Pact to enhance Arctic capabilities and counter increasing geopolitical activities in the region. The initiative aims to bolster shipbuilding capacities, particularly for icebreaker vessels, and thus strengthen the US Coast Guard while supporting allied operations.
 

While the shipbuilding push is strategically sound, it faces several hurdles. Financial constraints pose the most immediate challenge. The US Navy’s 2025 shipbuilding plan is projected to cost more than US$40 billion annually through 2054, which is notably higher than the Navy’s own projection of around US$30 billion per year, highlighting potential discrepancies in cost assessments.

The US Navy’s shipbuilding programme has a history of cost overruns, design flaws and production delays. Competing defence priorities – including the modernisation of the nuclear triad and increased investment in cyber and space capabilities – could limit available funding for naval expansion.

Industrial capacity and workforce shortages present another obstacle. The American shipbuilding industry currently lacks the capacity to produce ships at the required pace and scale. A shortage of welders and engineers could delay production timelines and increase costs.

Technological and logistical barriers also pose significant challenges. Developing next-generation vessels involves overcoming complex issues, such as advancing stealth technology, missile defence systems and energy-efficient propulsion. Additionally, integrating unmanned surface vessels and artificial intelligence into naval operations demands both technical expertise and doctrinal adaptation.

China’s naval build-up has been staggering in both scale and pace. Its state-owned shipbuilders benefit from government subsidies, streamlined production processes and access to domestic suppliers. According to the US Navy, China’s shipbuilding capacity is 232 times that of the US.

Russia’s naval strength lies in its Arctic capabilities. The modernisation of the Northern Fleet includes new submarines, missile defence systems and icebreakers. Russia’s ability to sustain year-round operations in the Arctic gives it a strategic advantage in securing newly accessible shipping routes and resource deposits. Despite Western sanctions, Moscow’s strategic alignment with Beijing has allowed it to sidestep some supply chain constraints.

The US shipbuilding push represents a strategic recalibration aimed at addressing perceived growing maritime challenges from both China and Russia. While the plan seeks to bolster US naval capabilities, its success will depend on overcoming significant financial, industrial and technological hurdles.

Nevertheless, the overarching objective is clear: enhancing the US Navy’s capacity to operate effectively in both the Indo-Pacific and Arctic regions, safeguard vital global trade routes and counter increasingly complex geopolitical threats. In parallel, the ongoing Russia-US diplomatic talks could have broader strategic implications. Any breakthrough in cooperation or stabilisation might prompt shifts in both nations’ naval priorities.

Yet, given the complexities of the current global order, Washington’s maritime strategy will ultimately be tested not only by external competitors but also by its ability to navigate the domestic challenges threatening to undermine its stated objectives. Success will hinge on continued political will, industrial innovation and effective cooperation with allied partners.


This article was originally published on the website of South China Morning Post on March 20, 2025.