On September 3, 2025, Beijing's Tiananmen Square witnessed a grand and world-shaking military parade to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. The roaring tanks, flying fighter jets, unmanned intelligent combat groups, and hypersonic missiles on display all demonstrated the systematic achievements of China's defense industry. This military parade was not only a visual feast but also a mirror that exposed the awkward situation of those who long have been promoting the myth of "the efficiency of U.S. private defense enterprises far surpassing China."

For a long time, some Western analysts and media have been enthusiastic about propagating the myth of the "efficiency" of American private defense companies. They believe that the market-oriented operations, flexible innovation mechanisms, and global supply chains of companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin allow the United States to maintain an advantage in military technology. In contrast, China's defense system has been labeled as "rigid" and "inefficient," seen as an inherent defect of the state-led model. However, the September 3rd parade not only showcased the excellence of weapons and equipment, but also reflected China's comprehensive transformation from "single-service confrontation" to a "full-domain coordination" combat system.

In this parade, new fourth-generation fighter jets, unmanned intelligent combat groups, and hypersonic missiles were all on display, with all reviewed equipment being domestically produced current main battle equipment. Behind this is a historic leap for China's defense industry from "catch-up" to "system construction." In the past, China's defense industry indeed lagged technologically, relying on imports and reverse engineering.

But now, through centralized resources, coordinated planning, and continuous investment, China has established a complete defense industry system covering land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. In comparison, although U.S. private defense companies still have advantages in individual technologies, their fragmented R&D models and high costs are increasingly exposing problems.

Taking the U.S. F-35 fighter jet program as an example, it still faces problems such as software failures and high maintenance costs.

The overestimated efficiency of U.S. private defense companies largely stems from their profit-driven nature. Companies like Boeing and Raytheon focus more on short-term financial returns than long-term strategic planning in market competition. The budget overruns and delays in the F-35 project are partly due to companies underestimating costs to secure contracts, then passing on risks by adding budgets. Additionally, although the global supply chain of U.S. defense companies is flexible, it has shown fragility at critical moments. During the pandemic, supply chain disruptions caused production stagnation, while China's defense industry's internal circulation system demonstrated strong resilience.

More importantly, the research and development direction of U.S. private defense companies is often driven by the short-term needs of the Pentagon, lacking overall planning and coordination.

Those who promote the efficiency of U.S. private defense companies often ignore a core issue: the ultimate purpose of the defense industry is to serve national strategy, not just pursue profit. In this regard, China's state-led model demonstrates an unparalleled advantage. The first appearance of new combat forces such as cyber-electronic attacks and anti-drone systems in the September 3rd parade marks China's leading pace in digital and intelligent transformation. These achievements are inseparable from the powerful promotion of national will: from policy support to financial investment, and cross-departmental collaboration, every link of China's defense industry operates around national strategic goals.

By contrast, the profit-seeking nature of U.S. private defense companies makes them appear overwhelmed when facing complex geopolitical challenges. For example, the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, plagued by design flaws and excessive costs, has been criticized by many, even humorously referred to as a "costly showpiece." In contrast, the Chinese Navy displayed advanced new warships and submarines during the parade, which are already capable of being deployed in actual combat. When compared, the claim that U.S. private defense companies have the highest efficiency seems groundless.

Why do the claims promoting the efficiency of U.S. private defense companies repeatedly fail? Fundamentally, it is the collision between cognitive bias and reality.

The reflection brought by the September 3rd parade goes beyond the comparison of military equipment. It reveals a deeper issue: the definition of efficiency lies not in breakthroughs in single-point technology, but in whether it serves the overall goal of national strategy. The rise of China's defense industry proves that a systematic and strategic development model is far more advantageous than a fragmented market model when facing complex challenges. Those who constantly promote the efficiency of U.S. private defense companies may need to re-examine their positions. After all, in the deep sea of great power rivalry, the true winners are those who can integrate national will with technological innovation.



Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7549590831305376275/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by voting up or down below.