Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

usni.org

351–360 of 469 posts

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They considered foreign ownership of U.S. Steel a national security threat. Rightfully so. It is a key industry and has to be fostered internally.

The question is how to get U.S. Steel to invest in modern equipment and processes. U.S. steel is one of the companies that invested in more efficiency in their core processes and failed to be ready when new processes went from expensive to cheaper and better.

Still not following why Japan needs to own it in order for that to occur. If we have a foreign dependency problem, the solution is not to add a different foreign dependency.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#352
post #161

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…

Another alternative would be adopting South Korea and Japan into closer orbits the way we unconditionally support Israel. South Korea and Japan have strong commercial shipbuilding industries, which are just in the past few years going idle because China is subsidizing theirs more aggressively.

Not sure about SK, but headwinds in Japan are showing a political both-siding after all the backstabbing and increasing Chinese population throughout all prefectures in Japan. Rightfully so, I would say.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden considered Nippon Steel a national security threat so the Japanese are going to raise an eyebrow when the US Navy begs them to work on actual military ships

They considered foreign ownership of U.S. Steel a national security threat. Rightfully so. It is a key industry and has to be fostered internally.

Cool. Japan will then not work on US Navy ships because it's a national security threat. Good luck.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transportation costs are so high that it's often cheaper to stick-build a house than to bring in a manufactured one. The manufactured ones only win when it's very tiny (think: trailer) or when you do an entire development with them, and even then you often need a rail line or something to make it work. Even the "put together on site" kit ones run into problems that the stick-built basically avoid, like things not lin…

Note that stick built most of the wood is cut to size at a factory. If the wall is 8 foot, then you just grad the precut stack of 92-5/8" studs (after adding the top and bottom plates that works out to 8 foot with some needed slop for the ceiling and flooring), likewise you will get 104-5/8" for 9 foot walls. No other wall size is common in the US because then you have to cut all the boards on site for higher costs.…

Yeah, when people think "modular home" they think pre-assembled wall panels, etc, but those have other problems (like it's hard to wrap the insulation around the walls when you have to connect them).

Real expensive custom homes are where you change dimensions so that non-standard parts are needed (not even things like wider doors, but non-standard widenesses).

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, hol…

Very different circumstances.

Ukraine was (and is) a very small economy literally right up against russia that had long been in Russia's sphere of influence if not under its direct control. Ukraine's fall would have had little meaningful impact on western powers other than losing some face in countering Russian aggression. Specifically to avoid losing that face, western leaders made it very clear from the get go that they would not step in to defend Ukraine, specifically so that they could conserve their strength in case they needed it against China. The universal assumption was that Russia, which was believed to have one of the most capable armies in the world would steamroll the Ukrainians and the country would fall in days if not hours. Only when the Russian advance stalled and it became clear that Ukraine with moderate support could hold out did the west start providing that support, and only after Ukraine made some impressive gains that demonstrated it could not only hold out but potentially drive the russians back did the west start sending serious aid.

Conversely, Taiwan is extremely integrated into the global economy and is a key part of America's pacific power. We have been backing Taiwan for decades. Taiwan is an island, and one with very few appropriate landing sites, making its invasion extremely technically challenging for any power, even one with a strong navy. China, despite its recent shipbuilding spree, still lacks naval and amphibious combat experience, and it does not have anywhere near the fleet size necessary to fully leverage its army's main strengths. We are all freshly aware of lessons learned from Ukraine's invasion: that the strength on paper of countries like Russia and China do not correspond to force projection capability, that providing substantial aid early on is critical, and that modern military equipment is not so powerful as to collapse an otherwise functional country in hours. The amount of aid Taiwan needs is less, and the willingness to give it is greater. Only a major shift in US behavior would cause it to not support Taiwan.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#356

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…

You seem to misunderstand what the Jones Act does and does not do. Our current predicament is not caused by the Jones Act.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#357

A lot of folks are saying big ships are outdated. Keep in mind that war is 80% logistics: and if you are going to engage an enemy far away from your landmass (or project power for that matter), you need huge capacity to move materiel to said location, and that normally means ships. An interesting thing to look at is something called the "Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel": for every gallon that the US delivers to a Forward…

“Infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars” That said, for smaller engagements when you have a forward operating base, you can air drop a massive amount of tonnage on a dime with C-5s. And if we ever turn Starship into an orbital equipment delivery system, we'll be able to open new salients quickly.

Planes are tiny.

The largest plane can carry 225 or so tons.

The largest ship can carry 225,000 tons or so.

That is 3 orders of magnitude different.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#358

A lot of folks are saying big ships are outdated. Keep in mind that war is 80% logistics: and if you are going to engage an enemy far away from your landmass (or project power for that matter), you need huge capacity to move materiel to said location, and that normally means ships. An interesting thing to look at is something called the "Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel": for every gallon that the US delivers to a Forward…

“Infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars” That said, for smaller engagements when you have a forward operating base, you can air drop a massive amount of tonnage on a dime with C-5s. And if we ever turn Starship into an orbital equipment delivery system, we'll be able to open new salients quickly.

Not as much as ships and not nearly efficiently enough to fight a war

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#359
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter to this is that it might make more sense for China to _not_ attack the United States with the anticipation that they sit it out. China attacking US forces/ naval bases makes it much harder for a president to sit back and say not our problem/ focus on economic sanctions. Imagine if Russia started the invasion of Ukraine by bombing polish railways, so that the Ukrainians would not be able to get supplies/re…

The game theoretic problem with this scenario (and thus why a Pacific escalation scenario is so dangerous) is that China has essentially all of its forces in the area around China, whereas the US and its treaty allies have their forces scattered around the world. Thus even if the US has a bigger military most of it won't be in theater on day 1 of a conflict, leading China to have every incentive to move as fast as po…

A naval invasion of Taiwan would be among the largest military operations in history, requiring immense preparation both to produce the necessary equipment and to move it into position, to say nothing of moving and training all the participating forces. In the era of satellite surveillance, the US would know months if not years in advance. They would almost certainly preposition forces in proximity both as a deterrent and as a potential response force. There's no comparing today's circumstances to a time when a carrier strike group could sneak up and launch a surprise attack on a US base.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is now in charge of the US and admires Xi and his dictatorship. He’ll find an excuse not to intervene or even better will pay peacemaker and trumpet how his intervention saved millions of lives and stopped a war by capitulating to China and refusing Taiwan aid. As he is doing in Ukraine. Since Trump is in I’d expect invasion later this year or next. After invasion the people of Taiwan won’t be choosing anything…

I get that it is easy to say that Trump admires dictators, he is such great friends with them, they have compromising information on him and he will allow them to do whatever they want, however, he was president before and during that time China did not invade Taiwan. Also during that time; Russia did not invade Ukraine.

It is a fact that he admires dictators, not sure why you feel the need to reframe it as ‘easy to say’?

He has been useful to Putin already (‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” ) and will be again by pausing the disastrous invasion and refusing Ukraine aid. I can see him being similarly useful to Xi for similar reasons.

China was not ready last decade they have been clearly preparing the last few years and now is the time to do so.

Post reply on HN