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

241–250 of 328 posts

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

#241

Post by vlovich123 »

cyberax wrote: post #127
vlovich123 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it’s worth American workers as a whole make ~20x what Turkish workers do. While American shipbuilders make more than the average while Turkish ones are closer to their average countrymen, the 20x discrepancy in salaries doesn’t seem limited to shipbuilding. So not sure about the characterization of “sucking on the teat of taxpayers” per se vs overall higher regulations and salaries in the US.

> For what it’s worth American workers as a whole make ~20x what Turkish workers do. It's about 7x. > 20x discrepancy in salaries Not salaries. The end-product costs.

Average national salary in the US $60k [1] vs 5k for turkey so closer to 11-12x (the coasts typically pay closer to 70k). So at most unions are costing US built ships to be twice as expensive due to unions and overall higher US wages are responsible for the price difference - difficult to compete on price with people that are willing to work for 1/10th your wage unless you can automate significantly more than them.

[1]: https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/business/hr-payroll...

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

#242

Post by fpoling »

zmgsabst wrote: post #223
ywvcbk wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Artillery and particularly guided artillery like Excaliber rounds are highly effective at resisting landings. In the most recent US wargame, China succeeded in occupying parts of Taiwan which would make artillery even more important — as attacks from the mountain regions towards Chinese occupation would keep them from establishing a secure foothold.

Excaliber became ineffective in Ukraine after Russia deployed effective jamming.

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

#243

Post by aylmao »

FredPret wrote: post #172
aylmao wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like free markets. I just don't like that China is eating the West's lunch. They just seem better at playing the "free markets" game than anyone on this side of the globe and I think the USA is doubling down on the ideas that defined it in the 1970's, rather than saying— "it's a new world, let's see what we can learn from it to up our game". China has definitely learned plenty from the world, and fundamentally chan…

China in 1990 was a poverty-stricken, hungry backwater, following a philosophy that just bankrupted their richer big brother. Ideological change was needed. By contrast, the US system of capitalism + democracy is not only blowing the rest of the world out of the water, it has shown itself to be remarkably resilient and responsive to change. China has thus far prospered by being great at manufacturing. Can they innova…

I'm not saying the USA should stop being a democracy, or even being capitalist, like China didn't change its system of government in 1990. What I'm saying is its fundamental beliefs, goals derived from those beliefs, and systems designed around those goals —even within the same political and economic system that currently exists— could use an update.

Let me put it this way. Everyone has heard of Maoism [1] of course. There's also Dengism, which does claims to not reject Marxism–Leninism or Maoism, but instead adapt them to the times China was going through [2]. Turns out what Mao believed might or might not be true, but it certainly wasn't working. A change in system of government wasn't needed, but a change in philosophy was.

Now Xi'ism [3] has been taking shape, and rightly so. The world, and China's place in it, are very different from where they were two decades ago. It doesn't seem to far-fetched to re-think what the purpose of that government is, what it believes to be true, and to figure out how to shape policy around it.

To give another example closer to the USA, in 2022 Mexican President Obrador held a rally, where outlined the philosophy of his political movement. Inheriting largely from what people had been calling Obradorism, he defined Mexican Humanism, which takes from the general current of mumanism but adapts it to the moral and ethic values, the needs, and other philosophical currents of Mexican politics [4].

It just seems to be there haven't been fundamental "-isms" in the USA in a while. The philosophy is the same. The USA considers its position in the world the same. The game the country is playing, it's purpose in the world, it's goals all seem the same as they did last century. All we get is "Bidenomics" or "Trumponomics", which are not so much philosophies, but just different ways of spending money within the confines of the same set of beliefs— corporatism, neoliberalism, hegemonism in the exterior, political nationalism in the interior.

IMO presidents and candidates here just seem to have so little substance in ideology. Bernie is the most recent one I can think that really talked ideology, and spoke widely about democratic socialism. He wasn't talking about tearing the constitution, just about thinking of different goals within the same framework of government.

I'm not surprised that "identity politics" takes over instead, and people come to worry about where the grandparents of a candidate were born. If candidates give you little philosophy to relate to, I guess you have to assume their philosophy based on their skin color.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping_Theory

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought

[4]: https://puedjs.unam.mx/revista_tlatelolco/el-concepto-de-hum...

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

#244

Post by justin66 »

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 recent incarnation of isolationism in American politics might manifest if the US had the wrong leadership during an invasion of Taiwan or, I guess, Australia.

Defending Japan is a reflex action. We have bases and troops there, as well as a mutual defense treaty.

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

#245

Post by lostlogin »

hintymad wrote: post #145
jahewson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Curious why the US does not think this is a big problem. I mean, look at the US 80 years ago. The US easily out produced the Axis. We could produce faster and cheaper. 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? Besides, expertise is not just volumes of blueprints, right? We can only kee…

> Isn't being able to manufacturing cheaply the signature of a highly developed society?

Maybe. Or a it’s a sign that workers, the environment, or some other factor is being exploited for gain.

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

#246

Post by dudefeliciano »

EasyMark wrote: post #152
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…

I've always heard people say nationalism is a good thing and globalism is the solution, yet they never have an answer to what do you do when China controls every supply chain and then decides to bulldoze Taiwan and we then go to war with them? All the market advantages and globalism in the world goes out the window and you can't do much more than capitulate to a bully.

Who ever said that nationalism is a good thing, apart from nationalists?

“Nationalism is an infantile disease, it’s the measles of mankind.”

-Albert Einstein

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

#247

Post by matips »

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".

You can make a deal that US buy icebreaker for 300M from Finland and Finns buy weapons from US for 300M. They need it because of Russia and you boosts US economy in other areas.

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

#248

Post by throwaway290 »

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.

The question was, is it uncompetitive because self-imposed requirements/limtiations are stricter or because of lack of competence. You are answering something else

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

#249

Post by happakid7 »

talldayo wrote: post #42
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'…

This type of thinking can strike as post-hoc rationalization.

the US need a navy to have a presence in the middle east , and Asia. We are down to the bones for force projection and to secure our own shipping. There is no 'less Naval dependent' way to police the worlds waters - the alternative is to give up.

Which is fine, the USA has been struggling with naval force projection for some time.

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

#250

Post by seb1204 »

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 heard that we are now (2000 and onwards) mostly administrators that try to minimize their risk as opposed (think after great depression) to doers that get measured and appraised by what the deliver. Getting stuff done in manufacturing with the right amount of ass covering, safety and documentation as opposed to over engineering it is very hard nowadays due to the complexities we have. The complex systems require different experts who cover themselves against fuckups.
Post reply on HN