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

The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

usni.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 469 posts

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#101

Post by jabl »

indymike wrote: post #89

I don't share the confidence in large ships being the future of naval anything. Even in the 90s, surface ships were easy pickings for submarines and antiship missiles. Smaller ships acting as drone carriers combined with arsenal ships can allow local power projection to keep shipping lanes open. Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. The aircraft carrier does have a ro…

> The aircraft carrier does have a role, but it is far behind the contact line.

That's why they're called 'aircraft carriers'. The entire point of them is that the offensive firepower in the form of aircraft can reach out pretty far. They don't need to sail the carrier right up beside the enemy in order to hit him with their swords, you know.

Jokes aside, there might (eventually, maybe not today?) be a point in what you're saying. It's been a long time since 1945 when carriers last were used in a major peer conflict, and a lot has changed since then.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#102

Post by _heimdall »

lupusreal wrote: post #78
foldr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a pretty realistic China/US war scenario. China invades Taiwan and then the US responds militarily. I’m not saying that this is a particularly likely scenario, but it’s far from impossible.

The nature and number of the naval assets that China is building suggests that China invading Taiwan is actually very likely. Westerners who don't understand why China would want to do that get hung up on their lack of understanding, think it an irrational act (bad for trade, etc) and therefore unlikely for China to do. What they're missing is the concrete evidence of China preparing to do it. Those amphibious landin…

A bit off topic, but Russian field hospitals and blood supply was only the last, most obvious indicator.

The build up of troops could have been written off as sabre rattling, they did the same a year or two earlier. Sending a bunch of naval assets the long way around Europe was a much more clear sign, at least for me that's when I knew they were actually going to invade (again).

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#103

Post by Ylpertnodi »

indymike wrote: post #89

I don't share the confidence in large ships being the future of naval anything. Even in the 90s, surface ships were easy pickings for submarines and antiship missiles. Smaller ships acting as drone carriers combined with arsenal ships can allow local power projection to keep shipping lanes open. Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. The aircraft carrier does have a ro…

>Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower.

Until drones carrying drones carrying drones becomes a thing.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#105

Post by Yeul »

jabl wrote: post #101
indymike wrote: post #89

I don't share the confidence in large ships being the future of naval anything. Even in the 90s, surface ships were easy pickings for submarines and antiship missiles. Smaller ships acting as drone carriers combined with arsenal ships can allow local power projection to keep shipping lanes open. Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. The aircraft carrier does have a ro…

> The aircraft carrier does have a role, but it is far behind the contact line. That's why they're called 'aircraft carriers'. The entire point of them is that the offensive firepower in the form of aircraft can reach out pretty far. They don't need to sail the carrier right up beside the enemy in order to hit him with their swords, you know. Jokes aside, there might (eventually, maybe not today?) be a point in what…

NATO exercises always ended with the nukes.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#106

Post by iuscommune »

indymike wrote: post #89

I don't share the confidence in large ships being the future of naval anything. Even in the 90s, surface ships were easy pickings for submarines and antiship missiles. Smaller ships acting as drone carriers combined with arsenal ships can allow local power projection to keep shipping lanes open. Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. The aircraft carrier does have a ro…

Agree - this is a key lesson of the Falklands War which, despite being in the 80s, is one of the few hot naval wars of the missile age.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#107

Post by _heimdall »

jonnybgood wrote: post #76
suraci wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China reunifies Taiwan: 100% US responds militarily: not likely but possible

The only way the US will not respond militarily is if Taiwan chooses unification. By all accounts, Taiwan will not choose that. The US military has not been strategically shifting to the Indo-Pacific for more than 10 years now for no reason.

I wouldn't be surprised if the response to an invasion of Taiwan looked very similar to the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The world did nothing for about a week and it seemed as though leaders were willing to sit on their hands for a week to see if it ended quickly. When it didn't they moved from vague, hand wavy statements to economic sanctions.

If China tries to invade we very well could see a weak, hollow political response from world leaders unless China falters and is stopped initially.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#108

Post by _heimdall »

hnthrow90348765 wrote: post #95
suraci wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China reunifies Taiwan: 100% US responds militarily: not likely but possible

That's if we had a democratic president. We most certainly won't respond in the next 4 years to anything China or Russia does. The only thing they have to do for that benefit is not attack us directly.

Why do you think the party allegiance will make a difference?

I generally consider the republicans to be more likely to reach for military action, though the democrats have seemed pretty war hungry in the last decade or two as well.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#109

Post by niffydroid »

niffydroid wrote: post #51

The UK has been in a similar situation. We have a ship building industry plan and it seems to be going ok. Top of the range ships like type 26 are massive, expensive and cutting edge so will take time to build and commission. So what we've done is gone and brought an off the shelf design (Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate) and started building it. It's not cutting edge or massive, it should need less crew and most of it's…

laid 2022 * Type 26 laid 2017

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#110

Post by squeedles »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #86

Interested readers may enjoy Freedom's Forge by Arthur Herman, which chronicles, amongst other things, how Henry Kaiser led the rapid construction of the shipyards used to build the merchant fleet that helped the United States win the second world war. The book: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/208564/freedoms-for...

Recently read that on a recommendation from a friend. Great review of the sausage making necessary to get something as big and complex as the US moving in a different direction.

Only quibble about the book is that the author seems to subscribe to a great man theory of manufacturing, where having a CEO say "we will do it" is all that is needed and the rest of the engineering is left as an exercise to the reader.

Post reply on HN