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

301–310 of 469 posts

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#301

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

Teever wrote: post #256
L_Rahman wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, p…

That's not enough. What happens if a long conflict breaks out between China and the US can't rebuild capacity lost in the initial phase of the war because China takes out that Korean ship building capacity? With a capacity 260x times that of America the Chinese will be able to rebuild an overwhelming naval capacity, especially if the war technology turns to cheap, mass produced (semi)autonomous machines as seems to b…

Why aren't we trying to come up with something simpler, cheaper, and quicker to manufacture? We had this problem with bombs back before the JDAM was developed, and basically they just stuck an off-the-shelf guidance system onto a dumb bomb.

For that matter, why aren't we spinning up a few factories to build artillery shells?

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#302

Post by jjk166 »

HideousKojima wrote: post #207
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.

Airbus benefits from plenty of protectionist French/EU policies but don't seem to have the same issues that Boeing does

You mean you haven't observed the same issues Boeing has yet.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#304

Post by philwelch »

vuurmot wrote: post #48
suraci wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we ever did get in a war with them is that normal to think like this? do most americans think like this?

looking at this from the other side of the world, it feels like americans are so insecure, as if they are constantly frightened

That’s a funny statement because the other side of the world from the US includes places like Ukraine and central Africa (which is currently gearing up for a Third Congo War).

Enjoy the Pax Americana while it lasts. You won’t like what comes next.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#305

Post by ianburrell »

indymike wrote: post #294
XorNot wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It depends on what kind of drones you are operating doesn't it? Range, speed and payload seems to be the drivers for gigantism in military vehicles. So if you look at shorter range, or more accurate, smaller explosive delivery, you don't need a USS Ford size thing to act as a mobile base for them. One of the big lessons in Ukraine is that small, cheap and accurate works.

The Marines are working in close support drone for their amphibious ships. The proposals are the size of helicopters.

The problem is that can’t do short range from ships because it is too dangerous to get close to shore. Anti-ship missiles are common now, and guided artillery and glide bombs are possible.

Finally, drones haven’t been useful against ships in Red Sea, and some are good size. Speed matters for getting through defenses. The slow and small ones can be shot down by guns or rockets, the fast ones are anti-ship missiles.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#306

Post by machiaweliczny »

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…

True, Hitler mostly lost a war due to megalomania and spending 1/4th of naval budget on big destroyer instead of producing more ubots.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#307

Post by bluGill »

deltarholamda wrote: post #186
bluGill wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

close ship on ship battle is dead but large ships are needed for large long range weapons that can hit opposing targets that cannot be seen. a wwi battleship could ignore a small drone of today - a much larger system is needed to sink a ship.

Can a large ship, or any ship, intercept a hypersonic missile? Because that's the reality of today.

There are trade offs. That missile is expense and (see other discussion) might not even hit. A ship is mobile and moves erratically - the enemy needs to find it (not as easy as it sounds even with satellites all over). A missile that lands in the sea 100 feet from a ship does no damage. Hyper sonic often means limits to how you can maneuver it, so you have a chance of figuring out where it can be and thus getting the ship away (depending on your ability to detect it and predict where it is going). The rest of interception was covered by other comments.

A ship lets you get closer to the action. The closer you get the easier it is to overwhelm electric warfare - either because the slow drones can be programed and so don't need a radio (or fiber connections), or because you can make your signal strong enough to overcome it.

Missiles don't have infinite range. Different ones have different limits. Longer range costs both more money and payload. A ship can laugh off anything a tiny drone can do (even a commercial ship).

The above are all trade offs. However navy warfare is not dead and unlikely to die.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#308

Post by lupusreal »

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.

There are reasons they might think this would be different. That would be (probably) 30+ years in the past, in that case American civilians were targeted, on American soil, using flights full of American civilians as the weapons.

I do think that America would probably go to war if US military bases or carrier groups were attacked by the Chinese, but I think it's plausible that China might come to believe otherwise.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#309

Post by thijson »

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…

Part of the problem may be the US dollar being the reserve currency. This increases the value of the dollar relative to other currencies, and makes our cost of production higher. The dollar itself crowds out exports, similar how with Dutch disease fossil fuels crowd out other exports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

Economics is far from an exact science though, there's many other possible factors.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#310

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

tivert wrote: post #224
throwaway173738 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s turn it around. How does keeping the Jones Act ensure a competitive shipbuilding industry in the US? We could easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on. But blocking competition just keeps the market uncompetitive. We have no problem with subsidizing farmers and roads so why not shipbuilders if it keeps our navy competitive?

> Let’s turn it around. How does keeping the Jones Act ensure a competitive shipbuilding industry in the US? We could easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on. But blocking competition just keeps the market uncompetitive. Because the US can't "easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on." It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Even if you could…

>Because the US can't "easily subsidize the shipbuilders, pay for training programs, and so on." It has an ideological dysfunction that prevents that. Even if you could manage to get a program like that passed, there's a large chance it'd get cut in 10 years by some libertarian to pay for yet another tax cut.

I need to weigh in on this, I think. I don't know of many libertarians that would refuse to make an exception for strategic industries... you can't buy your ammunition from the enemy, even if their price is half of the domestic cost. And you can't even really be sure who your enemies will be when you find yourself desperately needing it.

If there was ever any objection to these subsidies and programs, I suggest that we might look at the neocons and neoliberals instead of the libertarians.

>That's only because of how the Constitution apportions senators and the electoral college. Farmers are spread out in a way that gives them disproportionate political power.

Well, about that... I sort of think maybe our food supply is also one of those strategic industries. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Post reply on HN