Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 328 posts

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

#201

Post by wakawaka28 »

fifteen1506 wrote: post #174
wakawaka28 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's really no excuse that the cost of making canon shells is 10x higher than Russia. Isn't being able to manufacturing cheaply the signature of a highly developed society? We have prioritized high wages for workers in the US, a phenomenon also driven by the reserve currency status of the dollar. Russians, Chinese, and Indians work for a fraction of the price we do. We have high labor costs and have to import man…

I'm pretty sure costs have gone up not due to workers' salaries...

I wasn't talking about a change in costs. Costs have been high in the US for a very long time. What matters in terms of industry is that the rest of the world is coming online and their products are much cheaper than ours, mostly due to cheap labor and the currency exchange rates. Cost increases of domestically sprouted goods in terms of dollars are overwhelmingly driven by inflation.

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

#202

Post by SubiculumCode »

0xffff2 wrote: post #3

An 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…

This episode of War on the Rocks: goes into some depth on the issue, if interested: Can ICE Pact Salvage American Shipbuilding?

Episode webpage: https://warontherocks.libsyn.com/can-ice-pact-salvage-americ...

Media file: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/warontherocks/WOTR_-_Icebr...

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

#203

Post by shiroiushi »

TrickyRick wrote: post #195
shiroiushi wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music? I don't think anyone listens to American music these days outside of America (and maybe Canada). America used to produce great music, back in the 60s-80s, that people around the world wanted to listen to, but that went away after the 2000s. American movies, however, are still quite popular abroad. Offhand, I'd say it's one of America's biggest exports. "Microcode" is the other one, if you mean things like CPU…

There's this Taylor girl who seems pretty popular but maybe you're right, the record concert sales probably implies nobody is listening to her.

According to this article (https://www.billboard.com/business/touring/taylor-swift-eras...), it looks like it's mainly American tourists going to Europe to see Swift's shows because the ticket prices are 1/10 as much as in America. Apparently, it costs about $5000 for a couple to see a Swift show in the US now, so it's actually a lot cheaper to just fly to Europe to see her show.

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

#204

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #167
0xffff2 wrote: post #3

An 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…

Labor is much more expensive in the US than elsewhere. That is the overwhelming burden in every industry. We need protectionist laws to guarantee that we can manufacture what we must have for strategic reasons, at minimum.

> Labor is much more expensive in the US than elsewhere. That is the overwhelming burden in every industry

This is true. But it’s not the root cause for our shipbuilding problems. Our dockworkers and shipbuilders are uniquely inefficient.

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

#205

Post by throwup238 »

phil21 wrote: post #196
Sakos wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US shipyards and military production are extremely low on any number of metrics. It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. At some point, you do need constant production of enough munitions, doesn't matter how smart or precise tho…

> It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. I don't think it's unclear at all. It's uncomfortable to call out an obvious truth: We couldn't even compare. The only hope we have is basically economic mutually assured destruction. If…

> If it comes to a hot war, it better be over (without going nuclear) within weeks or at most single digit months or it's more or less over. At least from where I'm standing.

Why? There is essentially zero chance that China can mount an invasion of the mainland US or even strike at its heartland enough to disrupt an industrial ramp up, even if it takes a decade (which it won't). The US can literally wait out anyone except Canada and Mexico (which... lol) by defending its coasts, with plenty of domestic natural resources - including agriculture, metals, and oil - to supply not just its military but the entire civilian population.

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

#206

Post by hintymad »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #198
hintymad wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have prioritized high wages for workers in the US I'm not sure if this is the dominating factor. Russia fired around 10,000 shells a day, and each costs about $1000. So for a year, Russia would have fired 3.65M shells that cost $3.6B. Let's say we need 100 workers to produce these shells. Then, he wage of the workers would cost merely $10M a year, if each one earns $100K a year. $10M over 3.65M shells, and that'…

Are you kidding? Everything is outsourced because wages are high in the US. I can't believe I have to spell out such basic and obvious economic facts to presumably intelligent people. >What the US lost was not advantage of labor cost, but the economy of scale. We've lost a lot of things but the reason things are expensive here is NOT that we didn't have economies of scale. That issue came much later. You get to have…

I believe initially yes, wage is a big factor. It's just that now the wage gives way to the economy of scale (maybe regulation plays a big role too). It's pretty sad too. The capital wants returns and growth, at the cost of weakening a country for generations to come.

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

#207

Post by roenxi »

Sakos wrote: post #177
cpursley wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is out producing the US on guided munitions and rockets fired from the ground as well (and missile defense). And icebreakers, of course. So it’s doable - just depends on priorities (ie, moving chip manufacturing back which seems to have us recent success).

US shipyards and military production are extremely low on any number of metrics. It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. At some point, you do need constant production of enough munitions, doesn't matter how smart or precise tho…

> It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China

Is it? What is the theory that the US could keep up with China? That would be the US vs the globe's industrial superpower with an arguably larger real economy. It doesn't seem plausible that the US can fight a long sustained war.

The plan as far as I can see it is to make use of a large network of allies and partners as well as aiming to finish the war quickly by cutting off materials like food and industrial inputs to stall the manufacturing engine. If it turns into a slugfest where munition reserves start to matter that seems like it would favour China.

One of the big surprises out of the Ukraine war is that the US isn't in a position where it can easily bully Russia. If that is the case it is hard to see it coming out ahead vs China in any plausible conflict.

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

#208

Post by bruce511 »

Sakos wrote: post #175
Teever wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The longer that a shipyard goes with fewer and fewer contracts the more likely it is to go out of business. And it's far harder to get a ship built at a yard that is out of business than one that isn't.

Also, shipyards that recently built one are more likely to get contracts to build more. Because other countries will be facing the same question.

More likely though isn't the same as likely. If I'm going to buy an icebreaker from a foreign supplier, sure the US is in the market, but they're still more expensive and take longer than Finland.

To get good at something, good enough that you're competitive on the world stage, you need to be building lots, iterating, getting feedback and so on.

The US coast guard doesn't have the need to kick-start that sort of scale of development. So it takes a fortune (think 10s of billions) to catch up to the Finns.

But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". 1.1 billion spent in the US boosts the economy, and ultimately works its way back to the govt in taxes.

The benefits have little to do with "preserving skillset" and more to do with the economic benefit of circulating another billion in the local economy.

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

#209

Post by bruce511 »

throwup238 wrote: post #205
phil21 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. I don't think it's unclear at all. It's uncomfortable to call out an obvious truth: We couldn't even compare. The only hope we have is basically economic mutually assured destruction. If…

> If it comes to a hot war, it better be over (without going nuclear) within weeks or at most single digit months or it's more or less over. At least from where I'm standing. Why? There is essentially zero chance that China can mount an invasion of the mainland US or even strike at its heartland enough to disrupt an industrial ramp up, even if it takes a decade (which it won't). The US can literally wait out anyone e…

There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place.

It's not about "home country". The US doesn't need carrier groups to defend home country. It needs them to project power into other parts of the world.

Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely make a token response, then fade away. Places where the US has enjoyed power (like the South China Sea) might be harder to protect.

Does the US have the stomach for wars in Taiwan, Japan or Australia?

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

#210

Post by fsckboy »

jahewson wrote: post #12
0xffff2 wrote: post #3

An 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…

> Is it that the US ship builders aren't competent Yes, they are woefully uncompetitive. They produce single-digit numbers of commercial oceangoing ships annually, at 2-4x the cost of elsewhere. It’s an industry on life support.

>woefully uncompetitive. They produce single-digit numbers of commercial oceangoing ships annually, at 2-4x the cost of elsewhere

unions and pro union legislation makes US shipbuilding uncompetitive. it also ruins US merchant marine. We could encourage it, but the world market is fairly competitive so we don't really need to, except for defense.

Post reply on HN