Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
construction-physics.com
Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
1–10 of 328 posts
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#2Why can't we just have a technology transfer agreement? Purchase the ships from Finland but make them at a US shipyard? Other countries do that with US defense manufacturers all the time. Purchase items, but with the condition that it will be manufactured in that country.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#3An interesting summary, but I don't think the article really answered the headline. In particular, I'm left wondering which is the bigger problem: Is it that the US ship builders aren't competent and have turned what should have been a fairly straightforward modification of an existing design into a huge boondoggle, or is it that the government requirements are poorly thought out and/or overly ambitious, resulting in costly redesign efforts that aren't really necessary?
Put another way, are we spending all this time and money to fail at simply building a ship that is functionally identical to one of these ~$300m Finnish ice breakers, or are we claiming we need something more sophisticated?
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#4Why can't we just have a technology transfer agreement? Purchase the ships from Finland but make them at a US shipyard? Other countries do that with US defense manufacturers all the time. Purchase items, but with the condition that it will be manufactured in that country.
they already do see
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2024/0...
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#5So in short the US only builds a tiny number of them once every two to three decades, so nobody has any experience. And letting someone with experience build them is out of the question because then it wouldn't be built in the US.
This seems like a reoccurring story when talking about anything vaguely infrastructure related in the US.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#6Why can't we just have a technology transfer agreement? Purchase the ships from Finland but make them at a US shipyard? Other countries do that with US defense manufacturers all the time. Purchase items, but with the condition that it will be manufactured in that country.
Technological knowhow is one thing, but the real problem is that we can’t build any kind of ship anymore, neither commercial nor naval:
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#7I can recommend The Terror first season series, despite its shortcomings, for a beautiful depiction of the struggle of breaking through the north passage in the mid 1800s.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#8Why can't we just have a technology transfer agreement? Purchase the ships from Finland but make them at a US shipyard? Other countries do that with US defense manufacturers all the time. Purchase items, but with the condition that it will be manufactured in that country.
That is what is being done with the next class of US Navy frigates [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#9> We also see the same cultural issues that we saw with American shipbuilding more broadly. There seems to be a lack of motivation to take maritime issues seriously or treat them as important.
This is the meat of the article in my mind. The US has globalized away its maritime industry in general and we now lack the institutional knowledge, infrastructure, and labor force needed to operate even semi-independently on the maritime front. Just look at our domestic shipbuilding capacity vs. China: https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/chinas-shipbuildi...
WA state has the same problem trying to get ferries built for the Puget sound. Every decade the fleet gets more dilapidated and the replacements get more expensive and farther behind schedule. The legislature has ditched the requirements that the boats be built at a WA shipyard and they still can't find builders.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#10> The culprit here isn’t the Jones Act, but another protectionist shipbuilding law that requires Naval and Coast Guard ships to be built in U.S. shipyards.
Now this is a surprise! As soon as I read the headline, I thought "Jones Act."
When I describe the Jones Act to people, the usual response is "That can't be right," or even "I don't believe you," but these days there's usually another person around that can say "Yes, that's actually right!" to back me up.
It's a good example of protectionism, like tariffs, that is completely ineffective. The industrial policy of the IRA and CHIPS acts are in contrast quite effective.