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

211–220 of 469 posts

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#211

Post by Tostino »

peepeepoopoo105 wrote: post #9
pavpanchekha wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Rapid Dragon, plus recent talk of using the B21 for air combat/to replace NGAD are pointing in this direction: use large, numerous, and cavernous planes for Pacific firepower.

Rapid Dragon cannibalizes our existing military transport capacity and can't achieve the same kind of economies of scale and high operational tempo that would be possible with a commercial airliner platform. Commercial airliners are designed to land, swap passengers, refuel, and take off with very little down time. Meanwhile, military aircraft are notoriously high maintenance.

I'm not understanding the connection you are making with commercial aircraft.

Do you mean rapid dragon should have been developed to work with our commercial airliner fleet rather than our military transport aircraft?

How would that work? I don't see rear cargo ramps on commercial aircraft (there may be some, but I don't know of them).

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#212

Post by L_Rahman »

jabl wrote: post #129
throw0101c wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 The US used to subsidize the salaries of US merchant marines on ships (US salaries are higher than Filipino ones) so that there would be a trained population, but that was stopped in the 1980s because subsidies are bad, so…

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…

We are all ignoring the obvious solution to this. One of the benefits of being a global hegemon is having close allies who are good at things we are not.

Intel fell behind on semiconductors and now Phoenix is turning into an outlying suburb of Taipei while the children of TSMC engineers are making the local school district look like magicians.

All the US has to do is subsidize one of the Korean heavy conglomerates, probably Hyundai, and get them to start pumping out cargo boats out of say Louisiana or Georgia with the promise of a government buyer. This problem goes away by 2032.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#213

Post by throw0101c »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #177
dmix wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the unfortunate end state from that line of thinking, is that the US as a country is a 'zombie', a hollowed out shell, where there are no industries left. The US can't compete purely on cost. We don't have the numbers of people, or education to keep up with the world. We'll end up being just a few financial and IT companies that only have corporate headquarters here, and the bulk of the work is off shore. Of…

> I think the unfortunate end state from that line of thinking, is that the US as a country is a 'zombie', a hollowed out shell, where there are no industries left.

An article from 2016, "Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades":

* https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-outp...

Manufacturing share of GDP has declined, the number of jobs has declined (due to automation), but output is up. The US the second biggest country (16%) after China (32%):

* https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufactu...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#List_of_countrie...

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#214

Post by lenerdenator »

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…

It won't.

The only way to solve American manufacturing woes is to start punishing people who are willing to sell out their country for shareholder profit.

Should have done it 60 years ago, but better late than never.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#215

Post by pfdietz »

themaninthedark wrote: post #164
lupusreal wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Japan attacked a military base in am American territory, not then a state, and never had serious plans to invade America proper. They thought they could knock America out of the fight before America realized it was even in a fight with a decisive demoralizing victory that would leave Americans feeling that ceding control of the Pacific to Japan was rational and practical. Obviously that theory didn't work for J…

I think that the events that played out after September 11th show that Americans still have the same reaction.

Sarah Paine makes this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#216

Post by throw0101c »

lumost wrote: post #168
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…

Are wages the principal component of “commodity” ship building? I’d have imagined equipment costs vastly exceed wages for building a relatively standard cargo ship.

> Are wages the principal component of “commodity” ship building?

Wages and steel.

China is the world's largest steel producer (US makes ~4% of global output). Reminder that Nippon Steel wanted to buy US Steel and (AIUI) keep US plants open, but that was killed by both Biden and Trump:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_U.S._S...

If US management/ownership cannot keep a company alive, perhaps let non-US folks give it a try if they're willing keep US plants open. The world learned lots of lessons from Toyota (who learned from Denning), perhaps Nippon Steel can teach a few things.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#217

Post by pas »

throw0101c wrote: post #124
pas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just politicians in general, but people, of course, are always surprised how expensive housing is, but then reject any kind of streamlined mass-manufactured option. They are conditioned to worship at the altar of small businesses and good ol' craftsmanship. (And plot after plot they blindly erect yet another replica of the standard American Dream with the compulsory backyard where they truly can be free, and cond…

> Not just politicians in general, but people, of course, are always surprised how expensive housing is, but then reject any kind of streamlined mass-manufactured option. You can build a tract of homes in 90 days (or less) using stick frame. They won't be fancy, but they'll be up to code (and with a little extra cost ( A crew of 4-5 guys (plus some subs) can build a custon home in 80 days: * https://www.youtube.com/w…

Yep, speed is pretty good, though there's still a long way to go.

As mentioned in this comment[0] land and labor are still the dominant part of the costs. So if municipalities would allow and prefer denser housing cost would be lower.

And of course if we are already talking about quasi-standardized (cookie-cutter) units, then there's even more reason to scale up projects so prefab components could be shipped in. (Though of course we again run into the tragedy of small scale. Metro areas are made up of too small suburban cities, they don't want a big project, they don't have the infrastructure for it, they don't want the extra traffic, and so on.)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42932445

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#218

Post by Tostino »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #205
Ekaros wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow you have to get the drones and missiles around. Or are cargo planes a thing? In age of missiles and drones... I think it looks like those would need quite extreme ranges. Well intercontinental ballistic missiles are a real solution.

If you worry about missiles and drones taking out the cargo planes, don't you worry about missiles and drones taking out cargo ships as well?

Ships can easily mount a CWIS or similar to help with a wide range of threats. Not so easy to do the same on a cargo aircraft.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#219

Post by themaninthedark »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #177
dmix wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the unfortunate end state from that line of thinking, is that the US as a country is a 'zombie', a hollowed out shell, where there are no industries left. The US can't compete purely on cost. We don't have the numbers of people, or education to keep up with the world. We'll end up being just a few financial and IT companies that only have corporate headquarters here, and the bulk of the work is off shore. Of…

You can't compete on cost when you demand things be regulated.

Take for example: Medicine, we mandate doctors go through ~11 years of education before they are qualified and then complain about the cost and say that we can get the procedure done in MX for cheaper. Of course, Med school starting at 17 and practicing at 25 is cheaper than what we do. https://www.reddit.com/r/premed/comments/1ddxrt2/considering...

Steel: We want to carbon neutral steel production vs China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy63PEgmm8w

I am not against regulation and safety, I think we should all have clean air and water safe medicine and good food. The only way for us in the west to get that however is to pay the cost.

If we aren't willing to pay the cost then what we are doing is robbing our children, not only of a future with a clean safe earth but also of their economic future as while their peers in lax countries will have to deal with the pollution they will also have work and knowledge.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#220

Post by tivert »

kangaroozach wrote: post #143
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. Therefore, you don’t develop the competitive advantages. You remain at a competitive disadvantage, but it doesn’t matter since you don’t actually have to face the competition… until someday when the protection is removed and you are left to face the more advantaged competition.

> If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. Therefore, you don’t develop the competitive advantages. You remain at a competitive disadvantage, but it doesn’t matter since you don’t actually have to face the competition… until someday when the protection is removed and you are left to face the more advantaged competition.

However, it's not uncommon for a company or industry to fail to develop a competitive advantage, and then go bankrupt and disappear.

Without the Jones Act, it's quite possible that the US shipbuilding industry may have ended up even more moribund than it is now, decades ago.

Post reply on HN