Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#41

Post by ViewTrick1002 » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:30 PM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #32

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all stems from the Jones act. [1] The American shipbuilding industry has been allowed to atrophy in an idea that protectionism would lead to good commercial the results. What little gets built in the US is way behind the global peers in terms of economics and quality. As usual the end results are that the entire shipping industry works around the Jones act, for example cruise ships from Florida docking in the Baha…

“Leading to good commercial results” is definitely not the rationale for the Jones Act.

Read the wiki link. [1]

The goal was to have a globally competitive merchant marine based on a home grown ship building industry to call on in case of war. Trying to balance both sides.

The end result is that that home grown ship building industry has all but disappeared together with the educated population required to crew it.

[1]; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#42

Post by talldayo » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

quasse wrote: post #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 t…

I think that's the sentiment that think-tanks have been pushing recently. But outside a very "us-vs-them" viewpoint with China, I don't think it holds true. America's Navy does it's job pretty much perfectly for defending US interests at home and abroad. We have the tactical elements that we want to field, and we maintain them in a condition so they can provide the desired effect at any time. Building more ships isn't a panacea, and in many cases it's a great way to end up having billions of dollars in rusting assets sitting in dry-dock.

It's worth flipping the question on it's head. China's ambitions are very clearly best carried-out by a Navy that can harass Taiwan and expand their territorial claims in the waters surrounding Japan and eventually even threatening Australia. This is a smart move on their behalf, but they will be contending with unfriendly airspace and ground-based anti-shipping weapons. If you want to look at it from a purely military materiel perspective, I would argue the US has weighed their options and taken a less Naval-dependent route.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#43

Post by AftHurrahWinch » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

vasco wrote: post #38

I'm afraid this might be too much of a stupid question (and I promise I'm not American), but can't they just shoot at the ice as they go?

It's not a stupid question, but ice is remarkably durable and has 'self healing properties', to describe ice-cubes sticking together in the most pretentious way possible. There have been projects to make battleships out of ice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

Bonus answer: melting it with a flamethrower would be incredibly expensive because of enthalpy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#44

Post by iwontberude » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:34 PM UTC

> In fact, no existing U.S. shipyard has built a heavy > polar icebreaker since before 1970.

What does since before mean?

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#45

Post by observationist » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:34 PM UTC

cyberax wrote: post #19

quasse wrote: post #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 t…

> The US has globalized away its maritime industry It hasn't. Jones Act _protects_ the US maritime industry, so it stagnated and died. Nobody wants the US ships unless they have to use them, they're crap compared to ships from other countries. > and they still can't find builders. That's because shipyards are basically a defense industry subsidiary. So they receive a fixed amount of orders, and it's known for years i…

What do you think globalizing means? Ships are too expensive to be built to a given level of quality in the US. This means we outsource the expertise, and in this case, even the expertise necessary to tell what a good deal is.

They've created a market in which a US based company cannot compete economically, because the cost of production elsewhere will be less. There is no margin by which any competition can take place, whether or not the government throws a ton of money and stopgap incentives into the mix.

You can't manufacture chips, small household goods, general purpose clothing, electronics, or a whole slew of other things in the US because our legal regime fundamentally disallows any American participation in those markets through economic disincentivization. If you can't make any profit because you have to pay higher wages or taxes if you manufacture in the US, then you're not going to manufacture in the US, even if you're a patriot.

The US doesn't have a rational system designed to maximize value to citizens, it's a hodgepodge of conflicting regulatory grifts designed to maximally benefit the corporations who paid for the lobby.

> they're crap compared to ships from other countries.

That's exactly what "globalizing" is. You literally cannot, under the current regulatory regime, create a ship building company that can compete with other established interests and competition from other countries. You'd have to relax the arbitrary labor and wage constraints, fix taxes and tariffs for sufficiently long term outlooks that anyone would bother investing. To achieve that, you'd need good faith operators throughout the government willing to rock the boat, and if you think that will ever happen, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya - I'll sell it cheap.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#46

Post by mmooss » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:36 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #25

mmooss wrote: post #14

> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…

> There is no logic to economic nationalism, other than as wealth transfer from taxpayers to a few wealthy people. It doesn’t have to be that way, and phrased a little more benevolent, economic sovereignty is a good thing. It’s for that reason the EU has invested a lot of money into Galileo instead of just using GPS. Or look at the Ariane rocket program. It mandates an absurdly complex manufacturing schedule with tho…

> It doesn’t have to be that way, and phrased a little more benevolent, economic sovereignty is a good thing. It’s for that reason the EU has invested a lot of money into Galileo instead of just using GPS. Or look at the Ariane rocket program.

You haven't established that it's a 'good thing', but it does exist. I don't suppose Galileo is about economic sovereignty as much as strategic military independence. Modern militaries require satellite PNT systems - they are necessary to precision munitions, without which your military operates on a 1980s level. As close as the EU-US military relationship is, they perhaps don't want to give the POTUS a button to shut down, e.g., a French military operation. The POTUS might like Galileo too - they might not want the pressure to use that power. (I'll skip having another HN SpaceX discussion!)

> it creates a lot of jobs and distributes wealth throughout the union

Or it just shifts money and jobs from all people - the taxpayers (including businesses) - to a few, the ones that get those jobs and especially the business owners. It's arguably better to just give people the money and have them do something they can do efficiently. It's make-work welfare, in a way.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#47

Post by tdb7893 » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:37 PM UTC

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #21

quasse wrote: post #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 t…

It all stems from the Jones act. [1] The American shipbuilding industry has been allowed to atrophy in an idea that protectionism would lead to good commercial the results. What little gets built in the US is way behind the global peers in terms of economics and quality. As usual the end results are that the entire shipping industry works around the Jones act, for example cruise ships from Florida docking in the Baha…

People here keep blaming the Jones Act but the US has lost manufacturing capability across so many sectors so I don't really get how shipbuilding would be much better without the Jones Act. (Not that I like the Jones Act, I really don't, I'm just skeptical our shipbuilding would be much better without it. We were screwed either way)

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#48

Post by foota » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:38 PM UTC

observationist wrote: post #45

cyberax wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has globalized away its maritime industry It hasn't. Jones Act _protects_ the US maritime industry, so it stagnated and died. Nobody wants the US ships unless they have to use them, they're crap compared to ships from other countries. > and they still can't find builders. That's because shipyards are basically a defense industry subsidiary. So they receive a fixed amount of orders, and it's known for years i…

What do you think globalizing means? Ships are too expensive to be built to a given level of quality in the US. This means we outsource the expertise, and in this case, even the expertise necessary to tell what a good deal is. They've created a market in which a US based company cannot compete economically, because the cost of production elsewhere will be less. There is no margin by which any competition can take pla…

Other industries seem to be fine competing with other countries. Would there be some greater investment in manufacturing in the US if there were no labor (or environmental) constraints? Sure, but the fact that other industries compete just fine makes me believe it's simply not an economically efficient allocation of resources for labor heavy manufacturing to be done in the US.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#49

Post by gottorf » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:38 PM UTC

stackskipton wrote: post #28

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all stems from the Jones act. [1] The American shipbuilding industry has been allowed to atrophy in an idea that protectionism would lead to good commercial the results. What little gets built in the US is way behind the global peers in terms of economics and quality. As usual the end results are that the entire shipping industry works around the Jones act, for example cruise ships from Florida docking in the Baha…

Congress has been pushed not to eliminate would completely wipe out tiny remaining American Merchant Marine fleet. Most people who want to get rid of Jones Act are economists and other types who sole concern is "How much more money can we make from cheap shipping" while ignoring any national security concerns. We could talk about modify it maybe allowing purchase of specialized ships from overseas friendly countries,…

> "How much more money can we make from cheap shipping" while ignoring any national security concerns.

But isn't it the case that national security concerns are being reached, presently, under the effect of the Jones Act? We just don't have the capacity to build the naval vessels that we need for national security.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#50

Post by MostlyStable » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 9:39 PM UTC

quasse wrote: post #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 t…

>globalized away it's maritime industry

According to the article he references that talks about the problems with shipbuilding more generally[0], the US has never been competitive in shipbuilding at any point in the post-wooden ships period, long before globalization was the issue.

[0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build...