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

211–220 of 328 posts

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

#211

Post by nradov »

roenxi wrote: post #207
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 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…

Yes, the theory is that the USA should keep up with China and maintain a qualitative edge in order to contain them. Keep it up long enough and hopefully they will collapse or undergo an internal revolution, sort of like what happened to the USSR.

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

#212

Post by bruce511 »

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…

>> When things are outsourced due to some other country using slave labor or else their workers surviving on a tenth of what you make in the US, that is when you lose economies of scale.

There may be "Slave Labor" in some places, but the vast majority of people doing out-sourcing for US companies are very well paid (by local standards.) They are not "surviving" they are thriving.

living in the US is expensive. So prices go up to match. So wages go up. So materials go up. "National security" is expensive (and the US is obsessed by it.) 13% of the budget goes to the military. Protectionist tarrifs. Security theater like the TSA. All of this comes at a price.

The US has enjoyed a leadership role in world affairs, economic strength, influence etc for 75+ years. But it turns out that "expensive is the head that wears the crown".

I say this not as a criticism, merely as a statement of reality. Of course, whether it changes, or indeed even discussing if it should change is debatable.

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

#213

Post by throwup238 »

bruce511 wrote: post #209
throwup238 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

> 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.

Agreed

> It needs them to project power into other parts of the world.

China can barely project power in its own backyard while the US has nearly a century of experience projecting around the world, with eleven carrier groups to China's two. Assuming they all get destroyed by hypersonic missiles within the first few months, the US still has military bases all over the world. As far as I know, China has zero military presence in the Western hemisphere except some surveillance balloons.

China may have a short term advantage in production and cost but the US has the advantage in every other area of logistics relevant to a military.

> 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.

Absolutely but it'd be a pyrrhic victory worth little except as domestic propaganda. If the US does help defend Taiwan, the invading Chinese fleet will likely be massacred. There's little room to hide in the 80 mile wide Taiwan strait against modern anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons. China's only real advantage will likely be air power, which doesn't win wars without lots of boots on the ground.

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

I'm not sure about Taiwan, but I don't think we'd let Japan or Australia slip into war without assistance. (but what do I know? :-))

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

#214

Post by daveguy »

leshow wrote: post #163
bgnn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a similar case with the American busses? They are crap because they're protected? Similar with Boeing too.

The decline in quality of out Boeing has coincided with a collapse of the regulatory framework that kept profit extraction limited since the 70's and 80's. Now you've got the worst of both worlds, where the industry is protected and subsidized, production gets off-shored and outsourced anyway while massive profits flow into shareholders pockets in the form of stock buybacks. It's funny that you look at this and blame…

When did the regulatory framework collapse? 90s? Was there a specific bill?

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

#215

Post by bostik »

bruce511 wrote: post #208
Sakos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scal…

> But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever".

Even with the quotes, as a Finn I find this statement rather tasteless.

Or would you also claim that cross-border trade with more nearby nations is "money gone forever"?

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

#216

Post by ywvcbk »

bruce511 wrote: post #209
throwup238 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

The hypothetical war in Taiwan would likely be almost entirely naval/aerial so yeah the question is if US has enough political will. Don’t think artillery shells will be a huge factor and even on paper the Chinese navy (and probably the air force) doesn’t even come even remotely close to US (yet).

Actual invasions of Japan and Australia are even harder to imagine. How would that even work? And why?

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

#217

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

hintymad wrote: post #182
throwup238 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US outproduced the axis towards the end of the war but it was a real mess for the first few years while industries retooled and the government broke through obstacles like the aluminum cartel. It was only after Pearl Harbor and the formation of the War Production Board in 1942 that manufacturing really picked up because everyone felt the existential threat and organized against it. The US can’t make cheap artille…

> We use mostly guided munitions dropped from planes and rockets fired from the ground, whereas Russian doctrine has always focused on artillery. Thanks for the specifics. I don't know about guided munitions, but I'd imagine a million dollar a rocket will be quite expensive for a prolonged war. Also, the US debuted a killer zone, Rogue 1, a few months ago, and it cost about $94K. $94K! I'm sure the drone is more adva…

drone is an incredibly broad category and military ones have really good reasons for sometimes costing a ton more. the biggest reason is the need to deal with adversarial input. dealing with GPS spoofing, properly encrypted and jamming resistant spoofing, not leaking the location of the operator, etc all are really complicated requirements that need expensive mitigation (and worse, prevent you from using commercial components)

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

#218

Post by daveguy »

shiroiushi wrote: post #203
TrickyRick wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> $5000 for a couple to see a Swift show in the US now...

That's just not true. As long as you are able to get an original ticket and not a resold one. But ticketmaster and live nation should be regulated because they're a middleman monopoly in all of it.

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

#219

Post by Ekaros »

bruce511 wrote: post #208
Sakos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scal…

You get 300 million asset. If that asset produces more than 300 million in economic value you would have generally missed, isn't it still decent investment? If you do not need icebreaking, why spend money in first place? And instead use it somewhere that you get both benefits from.

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

#220

Post by ywvcbk »

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.

I’m not sure labor costs could explain the difference the supposedly 5x difference in cost between Finland and the US. Labor is only a fraction of the overall cost and the difference is not that huge (e.g. average wage is $63k vs $50k).

It’s more likely that US workers (in this sector) expect to get paid $100k to produce $20k of value (relative to other countries)

Post reply on HN