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

151–160 of 469 posts

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#151

Post by throwaway173738 »

bluGill wrote: post #121
pydry wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>people, of course, are always surprised how expensive housing is, but then reject any kind of streamlined mass-manufactured option. It's a pretty specific type of person who rejects the construction of streamlined social housing - somebody who definitely doesnt pay rent and someone who probably receives it.

No it is people who have no idea how mass produced a conventional house is. They think there is something for a factory to do. Then they go elsewhere and complain how houses all look the same these days.

Yeah a competent framing crew can bang together a 2-story 4000 square foot home from sticks in 2 weeks.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#152

Post by themgt »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #132

>The Nation Needs a Shipbuilding Revolution Somebody noticed :) Too late now, Nixon "opened up" China and Ronald Reagan said "NO!" to the kind of prosperity that would be needed in the 21st century. It's like political parties haven't been paying attention at all for a "little" while now. If American voters can not get over electing media "personalities" acting as leaders, those kind of fakers are not going to be far…

I had one interesting comment, conversation with Zyuganov... They talked about they don't want this NATO expansion. They know it's not in their security interests, and on and on, and said, well, if you do that, we may have to look to China. And I couldn't help using the colloquial expression from my state by saying to Zyuganov: "lots of luck in your senior year." You know, good luck. And if that doesn't work, try Iran. I am serious. I said that to them, and they know I knew they knew. Everybody knows that is not an option. And everybody knows, every one of those leaders acknowledges and needs, and they resent it. But they need to look West. - Joe Biden, Atlantic Council, 1997

https://streamable.com/v531nj

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#153

Post by thtowbs »

mc32 wrote: post #144
fuzzfactor wrote: post #132

>The Nation Needs a Shipbuilding Revolution Somebody noticed :) Too late now, Nixon "opened up" China and Ronald Reagan said "NO!" to the kind of prosperity that would be needed in the 21st century. It's like political parties haven't been paying attention at all for a "little" while now. If American voters can not get over electing media "personalities" acting as leaders, those kind of fakers are not going to be far…

[flagged]

Sanders would sell the country to China

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#154

Post by XorNot »

peepeepoopoo105 wrote: post #6

This will never succeed because the economies of scale are nonexistent without dominance in the commercial shipbuilding market. War planners should have pushed to repeal the Jones Act decades ago, but now Chinese shipbuilding capacity is over 230 times greater than ours because of their success in civilian shipbuilding. The proposed measures in this aricle are too little too late. The only logical course of action at…

In what universe are naval vessels an outdated technology?

This is making the classic mistake of assuming that a platform being vulnerable means it is not useful - which couldn't be further from the truth.

The US and NATO are heavily missile based militaries these days, and a ship is an efficient way to move a large amount of heavy ordnance to current theatres of operation. The endurance of a warship with stand off munitions in supporting land forces it's much higher than any air borne assets and a lot cheaper to run and that's very much the key: money at these scales is far from unlimited, and just because an aircraft could do any particular job doesn't mean you can sustain aircraft doing every job in a conflict (ala there's a reason special forces aren't just regular forces).

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#155

Post by potato3732842 »

leoedin wrote: post #7
peepeepoopoo105 wrote: post #6

This will never succeed because the economies of scale are nonexistent without dominance in the commercial shipbuilding market. War planners should have pushed to repeal the Jones Act decades ago, but now Chinese shipbuilding capacity is over 230 times greater than ours because of their success in civilian shipbuilding. The proposed measures in this aricle are too little too late. The only logical course of action at…

> This will never succeed because the economies of scale are nonexistent without dominance in the commercial shipbuilding market. This is what politicians just don’t seem to realise about industry and engineering. People get good at things by doing them repeatedly and optimising. That’s the only proven way. So of course if we build a couple of naval ships every decade, maybe a giant train line every 30 years or simil…

>This is what politicians just don’t seem to realise about industry and engineering.

Who gives these idiots power? Oh, that's right, we do.

Every two-bit is happy to screech about economics of scale out of one side of their mouth but you turn around and pick some other issue that they feel differently about and they want it regulated in whatever way they fancy, economics and long term feedback loops be damned.

The real problem is that western cultural norms (because let's be real here, this isn't just a US problem) don't sufficiently punish and dissuade people from being like this. It's not even lightly taboo unless you're a public figure and do it flagrantly, and even then nobody "cares", it's just an angle by which the people who don't like you get to fling rhetorical poo at you. And the problem runs bottom to top. It's not just the politicians, it's all of us.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#157

Post by throwaway173738 »

fancl20 wrote: post #130
jonnybgood wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not a single chinese have a single thought about going war with the US Odd. Then who in China feels the need to outcompete US military technology? Why is China developing missiles like DF-27 that are difficult to counter and take out aircraft carriers? Who is coming up with these ideas and for what purposes?

This misconception is common among US official/think tanks especially related to DOD because the way Chinese government operated is so counter-intuitive from US perspective (probably many other governments). It's actually same as how China makes economics policy: First assess the "inevitable" future, than make a plan to better adapt to that future (e.g. Battery, EV, Solar...actually a lot more examples before those).…

I think China is building military capability because they think they need it. We don’t know why. If you think about the game theoretic aspects of this, then it makes sense for the US to preemptively mass forces nearby even if they believe China’s ambitions are peaceful. You can’t just assume that because your opponent is telling you that. And vice-versa if you’re China and you see the US massing forces.

The fact that Chinese fishing ships invade other territorial waters to steal fish and damage habitat and the fact that the premier wants to bring Taiwan back suggests a will to be the aggressor.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#158

Post by dmix »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #137
jabl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems an unintended side effect of the Jones act was to insulate the US shipbuilding industry from international competition, leading to them resting on their laurels while the rest of the industry worked hard to improve productivity (see Japan, South Korea, and lately China). Which makes it even harder to repeal, since with a repeal of the Jones act the wildly noncompetitive (civilian) US shipbuilding industry wo…

"insulate the US shipbuilding industry from international competition, leading to them resting on their laurels" This is what I don't get. The Jones Act is about keeping ship building at home, in the US. So protective. By locking out foreign competition. It's a 'protective' law, to isolate and protect US industry. How will opening the US to buy and operate foreign ships, somehow make the US build more US ships? Look…

When you protect industries you get Boeing, you don't get productive markets, you get zombie companies who can fail all day without consequences and still get contracts because they are the mandatory only choice.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#159

Post by dmix »

throw0101c wrote: post #99

For anyone interested in the topic, highly recommend the What's Going on With Shipping? channel: * https://www.youtube.com/@wgowshipping/videos AIUI, the problem is that the US lacks a policy. This is what China's strength is: making a decision and getting it done. The article mentions the SHIPS Act which the channel talks about: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iksNr3s2WVs As well as five suggestions for Trump: * h…

> The IRA/CHIPS acts helped bring plants to the US soil. Industrial policy can work.

I see a lot of people say the CHIPS act is a success that should be duplicated but is there any evidence of this yet or is it merely because money was committed and promises were made? How much industrial output vs the amount of subsidies etc. It will probably take a decade before we know if it worked.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#160

Post by XorNot »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #103
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.

That doesn't mean anything. There's no reason to think a drone carrier ship would be smaller or cheaper then an aircraft carrier (if it was providing air capability at similar ranges, and if it's not then it'll be much more vulnerable).
Post reply on HN