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

261–270 of 328 posts

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

#261

Post by Qwertious »

roenxi wrote: post #207
Sakos wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US shipyards and military production are extremely low on any number of metrics. It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. At some point, you do need constant production of enough munitions, doesn't matter how smart or precise tho…

> It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China Is it? What is the theory that the US could keep up with China? That would be the US vs the globe's industrial superpower with an arguably larger real economy. It doesn't seem plausible that the US can fight a long sustained war. The plan as far as I can…

>One of the big surprises out of the Ukraine war is that the US isn't in a position where it can easily bully Russia.

The US hasn't been fighting Russia - if they'd deployed F35s in 2022 then Moscow would be called West Alaska by now. Don't conflate "doesn't" with "can't".

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

#262

Post by 9dev »

mmooss wrote: post #46
9dev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no logic to economic nationalism, other than as wealth transfer from taxpayers to a few wealthy people. It doesn’t have to be that way, and phrased a little more benevolent, economic sovereignty is a good thing. It’s for that reason the EU has invested a lot of money into Galileo instead of just using GPS. Or look at the Ariane rocket program. It mandates an absurdly complex manufacturing schedule with tho…

> It doesn’t have to be that way, and phrased a little more benevolent, economic sovereignty is a good thing. It’s for that reason the EU has invested a lot of money into Galileo instead of just using GPS. Or look at the Ariane rocket program. You haven't established that it's a 'good thing', but it does exist. I don't suppose Galileo is about economic sovereignty as much as strategic military independence. Modern mi…

The point I was trying to make was that keeping the technological manufacturing expertise alive is valuable in itself, even besides the geopolitical advantage of having the system itself in place. By retaining the ability to get payloads into space and use as well as operate an independent positioning system, even if a political conflict with former partners arises, the EU can make its foreign policy decisions without fear of retaliation through technology dependencies—or phrased differently, we avoid being vulnerable to extortion.

The key to this ability really is to keep the knowledge alive and the related industries strong, to be able to tap into it when it's necessary. And that involves having a broad range of companies actively involved into creating critical components.

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

#263

Post by roenxi »

Qwertious wrote: post #261
roenxi wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China Is it? What is the theory that the US could keep up with China? That would be the US vs the globe's industrial superpower with an arguably larger real economy. It doesn't seem plausible that the US can fight a long sustained war. The plan as far as I can…

>One of the big surprises out of the Ukraine war is that the US isn't in a position where it can easily bully Russia. The US hasn't been fighting Russia - if they'd deployed F35s in 2022 then Moscow would be called West Alaska by now. Don't conflate "doesn't" with "can't".

But if they "doesn't" fight Russia now, why are they going to fight China in the future? Pretty good odds they won't because the cost is too high.

What we appear to be seeing is they don't really have a lot of tools that can be used against an uncooperative nuclear-armed power; and many of those tools would probably fail against China.

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

#264

Post by bluGill »

impossiblefork wrote: post #256
ChiMan wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finland is part of NATO. The US and Canada should collaborate with it too. Sharing knowledge is a perfect way for European NATO allies to carry more of the collective defense burden.

Does it really make sense for Finnish shipyards to share knowledge of icebreaking when there the released text above discusses things such as the US and Canada selling icebreakers to third parties? It seems more like a way taking over the industry from the Finns. Obviously there may be specifics of the deal that makes it acceptable, but the vague text I see seems just terrible for the Finns. I suppose it might be acc…

It is in US/Canada's interest to have a shipyard in North America building ice breakers. Even though Finland is a NATO member, if something happens to Finland NATO may need some ship yards elsewhere to build more ice breakers (running 24x7 shifts!) while liberating Finland. Remember NATO (and military in general) needs to plan for all worst cases not likely cases. The above does not mean the shipyards need to be US/Canada. If they are Finland owned and operated that is fine. So long as the workers and a couple (minor) engineers are local that is enough - in the worst case (Finland's shipyard is taken and all the experts there killed) that shipyard is expanded and has some expertise to build on.

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

#265

Post by [deleted] »

shiroiushi wrote: post #234
daveguy wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $5000 for a couple to see a Swift show in the US now... That's just not true. As long as you are able to get an original ticket and not a resold one. But ticketmaster and live nation should be regulated because they're a middleman monopoly in all of it.

>That's just not true. According to the 1st paragraph of the linked article, it is. >As long as you are able to get an original ticket and not a resold one. That's pretty useless if they all get bought up by resellers.

[deleted]

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

#266

Post by bluGill »

hintymad wrote: post #182
throwup238 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US outproduced the axis towards the end of the war but it was a real mess for the first few years while industries retooled and the government broke through obstacles like the aluminum cartel. It was only after Pearl Harbor and the formation of the War Production Board in 1942 that manufacturing really picked up because everyone felt the existential threat and organized against it. The US can’t make cheap artille…

> We use mostly guided munitions dropped from planes and rockets fired from the ground, whereas Russian doctrine has always focused on artillery. Thanks for the specifics. I don't know about guided munitions, but I'd imagine a million dollar a rocket will be quite expensive for a prolonged war. Also, the US debuted a killer zone, Rogue 1, a few months ago, and it cost about $94K. $94K! I'm sure the drone is more adva…

A million dollar rocket is expensive, but it hits exactly where you want it and so you need far less of them. Artillery is a lot cheaper but also much harder to get exactly where you want it and so you end up using far more of it.

Note that Russia and the US have both guided misstles and artillery. Both have value in different situations. They both have their reasons for their preference, but that is more about how they expect a war they are involved in to look than about thinking one is better.

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

#267

Post by bluGill »

hintymad wrote: post #179
Sakos wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US shipyards and military production are extremely low on any number of metrics. It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. At some point, you do need constant production of enough munitions, doesn't matter how smart or precise tho…

> Because maintaining a military at adequate readiness doesn't seem to be at the top of the list. I think Yamamoto Isoroku gave the answer to this challenge: just keep a booming manufacturing industry. When he was trying to convince the Japanese government not to have a war with the US, he said that he saw so many chimneys when flying over Philadelphia. All those factories would turn into a giant war machine if a war…

> Setting up a shop from scratch with little expertise and no supply chain to back it up? Well, such replacement would then cost a few thousand dollars and we would be screwed.

You were correct up to here. However the US has a lot of manufacturing and so is not setting things up from scratch. Most of our manufacturing is automated these days and so it doesn't appear in many of the reports people care about, but the talent is still here.

Of course just like WWII, if war breaks out it will be several years before the US can ramp up production.

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

#268

Post by bluGill »

roenxi wrote: post #263
Qwertious wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One of the big surprises out of the Ukraine war is that the US isn't in a position where it can easily bully Russia. The US hasn't been fighting Russia - if they'd deployed F35s in 2022 then Moscow would be called West Alaska by now. Don't conflate "doesn't" with "can't".

But if they "doesn't" fight Russia now, why are they going to fight China in the future? Pretty good odds they won't because the cost is too high. What we appear to be seeing is they don't really have a lot of tools that can be used against an uncooperative nuclear-armed power; and many of those tools would probably fail against China.

Nobody wants to fight China because the cost is so high - we are talking about lives more than dollars here (though dollar cost is high too).

What everyone worries about is being forced to fight China anyway. China is not playing nice with the US on the world stage. They are clearly supporting Russia over Ukraine (while pretending to be neutral). They are siding with Iran in the middle east. They are doing things in Africa that are against US interests (the US doesn't have a good record in Africa, but the US generally has supported democracy while China is fine with dictators which leaves lots of room for China to be worse though only time will tell). They escalating with Taiwan and the Philippians. Those are the major reasons I'm aware of to be worried about China, there is more that I didn't write.

How will this turn out - we can only guess. But there is reason to worry.

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

#269

Post by bluGill »

throwup238 wrote: post #213
bruce511 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. It's not about "home country". The US doesn't need carrier groups to defend home country. It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely m…

> There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. Agreed > It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. China can barely project power in its own backyard while the US has nearly a century of experience projecting around the world, with eleven carrier groups to China's two. Assuming they all get…

> China can barely project power in its own backyard while the US has nearly a century of experience projecting around the world, with eleven carrier groups to China's two

Today. China is clearly building up their ability. In a few years the situation will look different which is the real worry. Also China may not need to be as big - China isn't patrolling the ocean like the US and so it is their 2 carrier groups near Taiwan against whatever the US can afford to send

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

#270

Post by saati »

Sakos wrote: post #175
Teever wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The longer that a shipyard goes with fewer and fewer contracts the more likely it is to go out of business. And it's far harder to get a ship built at a yard that is out of business than one that isn't.

Also, shipyards that recently built one are more likely to get contracts to build more. Because other countries will be facing the same question.

What other countries? There are maybe 10 that care even a little a bit about icebreakers.
Post reply on HN