Or....we could've been on the cusp of one of those Foundation/Asimov moments where our economy evolved beyond a manufacturing economy, with enough financial clout to...not actually need to be able to build our own ships?
The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
421–430 of 469 posts
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nope.
Thanks for the clarification. Next time I'll write "Xi, like every CCP leader before him, is wholly committed to retaking Taiwan."
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#423What exactly would be the cost increase for a ship built in the USA? Is it a 50% increase? 200%? 500%? And what would the dollar amounts be?
Consider this as very much back-of-napkin math, a Chinese 055 destroyer is about a third of the cost of an Arleigh Burke. So you’d be looking at roughly 300%.
So more envelope-math; a containership seems to run $100-200m, so it'd be $300-600m.
That's not so insanely expensive as to be completely undoable.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#424Ain't gonna happen. US businesses are incapable of thinking long term. If the US wants to build a ship industry they must invite Chinese shipbuilders to kickstart it just as they invited TSMC to build a factory here. But that doesn't seem likely does it?
South Korea is an ally and big in shipbuilding too.
I thought so too, but the Chinese are much bigger in this space.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#425Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#426We don't need ships to go fight the next war. The next war is going to be right here.
Unfortunately, before that war you expect to happen right in the US - current and future administrations will most likely sneak in anohter two, three, ten, fifty other wars, elsewhere.
You can't fit that many wars in during the next year.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? We launch ballistic missiles at each other. Probably kill 500-800M Chinese and 100-175M Americans. China hawks love fantasizing about this stuff. Reality is the as Ukraine demonstrates, direct conflict between reasonably advanced…
Even the question assumes that because the answer is "a few billion people die" it's not possible, and because of that (false) assumption, the first thing isn't possible. If China starts sinking US ships half the people reading this thread will die before ever hearing about it. That doesn't mean China would never sink a US ship.
We remain alive today after decades of nuclear brinksmanship, because in general, people don’t want to die.
The longer term strategic outlook for the US is… not great. Why would China poke the bear when the bear has teeth? Wait for America’s internal instability to escalate, then roll into Taipei without a shot fired.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
The returns to warfare changed significantly with the Industrial Revolution. Greater economic growth is now possible in times of peace rather than war. The Paradox game Victoria 2 does a good job simulating this dynamic. Highest score is possible by sitting out ww2. https://acoup.blog/2021/08/20/collections-teaching-paradox-v... Is a nice write up.
But that doesn't stop various dictators from making war.
most wars after ww2 were made by…?
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#429Earlier 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…
This is a false narrative. US shipbuilding did not rest on its laurels because of the jones act. The Jones Act was passed in the 1920s; US shipbuilding rose to a dominant position while it was in place. The US lost that position only after the 1980s cessation of subsidies to domestic shipbuilders. Ironically this was a move to stop foreign nations from subsidizing their shipbuilding industries, but it was never recip…
"The US lost that position only after the 1980s cessation of subsidies to domestic shipbuilders."
Not really: https://www.cato.org/blog/subsidies-misplaced-shipbuilding-n...
Also: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UJwLSBXvXcNTMfApNGgJHJTSCD0...
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given that the US shipyards are 'full' with US Navy work, ordering a bunch of merchant marine ships from our allies would boost them and give us trust-worthy vessels. Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this, and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards). > Another option would be to order civilian-like designs with a 'basi…
>the US would be well-served by taking ultimate control of ship design out of the Navy's sole hands, and infusing someone with a cost-focused incentive into the process. The highest concern for the Navy isn't cost, it is will the ship survive in war. You can make a navy ship a lot cheaper by sacrificing armor and reliability. But those are thing the navy doesn't want to sacrifice. Cost is important, but it is at most…
There is a finite amount of money.
Given that the Navy claims it needs more ships, and god knows extended and double-pump deployments bear that out, it might be better served by having 2 less capable ships than 1 more capable ship.
In the same way that the M3 and M4 beat Germany, despite being individually inferior to mid and late war German tanks.
Furthermore, the clusterfuck that is the Constellation-class frigate procurement program proves that the Navy is objectively bad at understanding how shifting requirements interacts with build time and cost.
PS: You're not the only person with family in the Navy.