Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 328 posts

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#101

Post by vkou »

xyzzyz wrote: post #95
vkou wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More realistically without the Jones act, ships wouldn't be built or operated by the US at all. International vendors can do this cheaper. You'd instead see all domestic shipping be entirely dependant on third-party international operators paying third-world wages to third-world crews, and you'd have next to zero recourse against them if they, say, run one of their ships into a bridge, or spill a few million litres o…

They already are not built in the US at all. This is already true today. We already build less than one oceangoing Jones Act compliant ship a year. The US shipbuilding industry can hardly get any worse than it already is today.

My point is that it wouldn't get any better. Anyone blaming the Jones Act for this completely misidentified the root cause.

There are a few good reasons to repeal the Jones Act (reduce shipping and trade costs in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico) and a lot of really bad ones (the domestic shipping industry will be completely killed, and you're inviting unbounded liability from unregulated, fly-by-night international actors who don't give two craps about our laws.)

The way ocean shipping currently works is entirely incompatible with any national rule of law. Flags of convenience and corporations with non-existent liability mean that nobody in the international industry is actually following any of the rules.

The domestic industry has to follow them, which is the reason why it's not cost competitive.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#102

Post by cogman10 »

cyberax wrote: post #19
quasse wrote: post #9

> We also see the same cultural issues that we saw with American shipbuilding more broadly. There seems to be a lack of motivation to take maritime issues seriously or treat them as important. This is the meat of the article in my mind. The US has globalized away its maritime industry in general and we now lack the institutional knowledge, infrastructure, and labor force needed to operate even semi-independently on t…

> The US has globalized away its maritime industry It hasn't. Jones Act _protects_ the US maritime industry, so it stagnated and died. Nobody wants the US ships unless they have to use them, they're crap compared to ships from other countries. > and they still can't find builders. That's because shipyards are basically a defense industry subsidiary. So they receive a fixed amount of orders, and it's known for years i…

> The shipyards are also unionized to hell and back, with VERY cushy contracts.

The problem here isn't the unions, it's the fact that we privatized building ships. It's yet another example that privatizing all parts of the government is a fundamentally bad idea. Government goals do not align with private industry goals and private industry, particularly in a well captured market like defense and ship building, gets to command insane prices because they know the US will pony up.

The reason the US was able to make advanced navy ships right up until the 80s is because shipbuilding was done by public industry. Insanely, Clinton and Reagan started the process of privatizing our fleet capabilities and it's landed us exactly where you think it would.

The reason we don't have ice breaker ships being built is because it's a niche market and ship builders are all too happy to say "no" or to charge an exorbitant price so the US military will go away.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#103

Post by ccozan »

xyzzyz wrote: post #60
stackskipton wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except if you can't move stuff around without support of 3rd party nations, that's defense crippling. If you want to be a global power, you require great navy, both civilian and military. That's been true since 1500s and will likely remain true for many years to come. So question is, do we throw out Jones Act and slowly stop being World Superpower or leave it and pay higher upfront costs in certain places? That's pol…

What you’re missing is that our ability to move stuff around has already deteriorated to almost nil, precisely due to Jones Act and shipbuilding workforce unionization. We already cannot build vessels we need at quantities we need. This is already reality today. Repealing Jones Act cannot make our situation much worse. It can, however, make us much better off, by for example allowing US companies to buy foreign ships…

Sorry to ask, are not any gas pipelines in US? In Europa there is a huge network of pipelines moving gas around in any direction.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#104

Post by toomuchtodo »

cyberax wrote: post #93
toomuchtodo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What industries? Steel? Protectionism. Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism. Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism. Agriculture? Protectionism. Why? Because efficiency is a tradeoff where you give up security and resiliency.

> What industries? Steel? Protectionism. The US imports steel, and the protectionist regime almost killed the US steel: https://reason.com/2024/01/02/protectionism-ruined-u-s-steel... > Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism. That's relatively new, and it _will_ lead to disaster. The US is already falling behind in battery tech compared to China and South Korea. > Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism…

China is winning because they are intentionally and directly investing in tech regardless of the financial circumstances. They don’t care about the profits, they are focused on the outcomes. They are doing what developed countries should be doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#105

Post by hluska »

The article didn’t mention Canada’s role in the Arctic. While the American icebreaker fleet has been diminished, Canada’s is relatively strong. Our coast guard currently has a fleet of twenty, and tenders were just awarded for two polar icebreakers.

So it’s not like the Arctic is totally empty - a NATO partner has a bigger presence.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#106

Post by vlovich123 »

cyberax wrote: post #73
skhunted wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionized workers can be hired on a temporary basis. By cushy contracts this means that the amount of wealth extraction from workers is not as great as it is in other American industries.

> Unionized workers can be hired on a temporary basis With these unions ("Boilermakers")? No chance. They can officially give their jobs to their _children_ upon retiring. There is a waiting list for apprenticeships. You have to complete 8000 hours of apprenticeship, even if you are already qualified. > By cushy contracts this means that the amount of wealth extraction from workers is not as great as it is in other A…

For what it’s worth American workers as a whole make ~20x what Turkish workers do. While American shipbuilders make more than the average while Turkish ones are closer to their average countrymen, the 20x discrepancy in salaries doesn’t seem limited to shipbuilding. So not sure about the characterization of “sucking on the teat of taxpayers” per se vs overall higher regulations and salaries in the US.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#107

Post by aylmao »

mmooss wrote: post #59
kazen44 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having your own manufacturing and industrial base is also very, very important from a geopolitical perspective. (as european countries have come to realise after the invasion of ukraine). you need your own industrial base to manufacture and develop the machinery you need to defend and project hard and soft power across the globe. Globalisation was supposed to "solve this issue" by making economies so interconnected t…

> Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up. We've learned that the world now is more divided and violent than we had hoped, with the revisionist Chinese and Russians on one side and the US Republicans on the other (or sometimes on the same side as Russia!) So we depend more on the military, and also we can't depend on China's manufacturing to supply military goods. But can the US depend on Europe's, S…

I think I only partially agree with this.

I do think the US can depend on Europe, Canada and Mexico. South Korea, Japan, and Australia are far from the USA and close to China. They have high incentive stay friendly with China.

I do think China can easily outproduce the US. But I don't know that the US needs to maximize output per dollar. The USA can print dollars, and already creates a whole bunch of dollars out of thin air every year. The inflationary effect of printing a few more billion, specifically to maintain local shipbuilding capabilities, might be worth it. Just going for dollar efficiency has led the USA to de-industrialize, perhaps too much.

The status quo can't be maintained, that's for sure.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#108

Post by stackskipton »

ccozan wrote: post #103
xyzzyz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re missing is that our ability to move stuff around has already deteriorated to almost nil, precisely due to Jones Act and shipbuilding workforce unionization. We already cannot build vessels we need at quantities we need. This is already reality today. Repealing Jones Act cannot make our situation much worse. It can, however, make us much better off, by for example allowing US companies to buy foreign ships…

Sorry to ask, are not any gas pipelines in US? In Europa there is a huge network of pipelines moving gas around in any direction.

There is but there isn't enough capacity in particular over the Rockies. So LNG ships are needed to help move what pipelines can't.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#109

Post by decafninja »

cyberax wrote: post #19
quasse wrote: post #9

> We also see the same cultural issues that we saw with American shipbuilding more broadly. There seems to be a lack of motivation to take maritime issues seriously or treat them as important. This is the meat of the article in my mind. The US has globalized away its maritime industry in general and we now lack the institutional knowledge, infrastructure, and labor force needed to operate even semi-independently on t…

> The US has globalized away its maritime industry It hasn't. Jones Act _protects_ the US maritime industry, so it stagnated and died. Nobody wants the US ships unless they have to use them, they're crap compared to ships from other countries. > and they still can't find builders. That's because shipyards are basically a defense industry subsidiary. So they receive a fixed amount of orders, and it's known for years i…

What’s the general consensus on the state of US Navy ships?

The most recent classes seem riddled with various problems - see Zumwalt, LCS, Constellation. I suppose the Ford is relatively ok.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#110

Post by decafninja »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #104
cyberax wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What industries? Steel? Protectionism. The US imports steel, and the protectionist regime almost killed the US steel: https://reason.com/2024/01/02/protectionism-ruined-u-s-steel... > Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism. That's relatively new, and it _will_ lead to disaster. The US is already falling behind in battery tech compared to China and South Korea. > Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism…

China is winning because they are intentionally and directly investing in tech regardless of the financial circumstances. They don’t care about the profits, they are focused on the outcomes. They are doing what developed countries should be doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025

They’re also an authoritarian state that doesn’t have to worry about various pesky things that grind Western democracies to a halt.

If the Pharoah wants a fleet of aircraft carriers, the Pharoah will have a fleet of aircraft carriers.

Post reply on HN