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

411–420 of 469 posts

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#411

Post by digitalscribe »

ethbr1 wrote: post #181
lupusreal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bingo. The terrifying thing about China's shipbuilding and armament focusing is "Why would they be building these specific things if they weren't planning on invading Taiwan?" The focus on amphibious capability doesn't have a lot of dual purpose use...

> Why would they be building these specific things if they weren't planning on invading Taiwan?

It's basic, obvious, and rational defense policy. Everyone does it.

Why does the US have thousands and thousands of nukes? It's to ensure the destruction of any adversary in case of nuclear war.

The US isnt the only country that's entitled to an arms stockpile.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#412

Post by digitalscribe »

specialist wrote: post #289
lupusreal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes and: I vaguely recall that reunification was part of Xi's ideology, necessary for maintaining his domestic grip on power. At this point in time, USA's isolationists may succeed in withdrawing from its foreign commitments. In which case, per your comment elsethread, realizing they no longer have USA's protection, Taiwan may capitulate.

Does anyone else not live off of propaganda here?

The Chinese civil war started in the 1900s, many many decades ago, not yesterday.

Every single last PRC leader has had a goal for reunification of China, including Mao, Deng, Xi, Hu, etc, etc.

Every last one of them.

The civil war didnt start yesterday.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#413

Post by ranger207 »

Supermancho wrote: post #364
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…

> Naval vessels are largely outdated technology Depends on the purpose. For patrolling, shipping, and disaster relief, it's a lot cheaper and more flexible (in terms of utility et al) than airplanes.

Or anti-submarine warfare, or visit-board-search-and-seizure, or persistent and powerful sensors, or ballistic missile defense...

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#414

Post by bluGill »

chrisco255 wrote: post #351
bluGill wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Japan has the expertise needed. Managers, engineers and the like. There is nothing here that cannot be done by local management, but it will take time and effort to develop all the people.

If local management had any interest in improving they would have started years ago... So they all need to be kicked out (presumably anyone who did care was forced out over the years) and start over.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#415

Post by einpoklum »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #395
einpoklum wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you are going to engage an enemy far away from your landmass > (or project power for that matter) Here's an idea: How about _not_ engaging far away from your landmass and not "projecting power"? The rest of the world has had quite enough of your projections.

Bad idea. I want the US to continue projecting power because the alternative is worse.

Somehow, all those people whose countries get bombed, embargoed, invaded, or have their governments switched by the US - generally seem to fail to agree with you.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#416

Post by ranger207 »

themaninthedark wrote: post #184
Animats wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The Jones Act was supposed to help American shipbuilding. It's a requirement that vessels which operate between US ports must be made in the US, crewed by the US, and flagged to the US. It didn't help much, but that was the plan. China's shipbuilding industry is so big that their aircraft carriers are being constructed by shipyards that make large cargo ships. Aerial photos show shipyards with drydocks full of c…

There is a group of people who are convinced that the Jones Act is bad, either they have been mislead or another reason. From that, there is a shortcut to the reasoning that occurs: Intercostal shipping is expensive : Jones Act's fault Can't build ships fast enough : Jones Act's fault Ships are expensive ; Jones Act's fault The things that the Jones Act mandates are that: Shipping between American ports must be done…

The Jones Act is bad because it's a bandaid on a more serious wound. Repeal the Jones Act, let what remains of American shipbuilding die, and maybe then someone will try to fix it. Right now the Jones Act just lets people point at the remaining American shipbuilders and say "see? They're viable with our current strategy! We just need to do more!" The only reason the current strategy has any life in it at all is because of the Jones Act; otherwise, it's not viable at all.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#417

Post by contingencies »

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…

Use the allies. South Korea is good at building large ships. They built so many recently there's an oversupply. I bet they'd love some contracts.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#418

Post by chrisco255 »

tsudonym wrote: post #353
chrisco255 wrote: post #277

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.

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

It should be obvious that alliances shift and you can't be dependent on your former world war rivals for war production, especially when you're supposed to be a world superpower.

Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution

#419

Post by justin66 »

einpoklum wrote: post #390
amanda99 wrote: post #341

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…

> if you are going to engage an enemy far away from your landmass > (or project power for that matter) Here's an idea: How about _not_ engaging far away from your landmass and not "projecting power"? The rest of the world has had quite enough of your projections.

"The rest of the world" is famous for sharing one single opinion on things.
Post reply on HN