4 ms·

This makes sense. But it's still stunning compared to today. The largest cruise ships today cost between $1 and $2 billion to build, and they weight more than

This makes sense. But it's still stunning compared to today. The largest cruise ships today cost between $1 and $2 billion to build, and they weight more than 200000 tons and carry more than 5000 passengers. The smallest (and newest) warship in the US Navy, the frigate Constellation, currently under construction, will cost about $1.3 billion [2], and weighs only 7300 tons. [1] https://cruisedeals.expert/how-much-does-a-cruise-ship-cost-to-build/ https://cruisedeals.expert/how-much-does-a-cruise-ship-cost-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate

shagie 4y ago
Accounting for inflation, 1950 to today would but $78M to $968M so...
mrguyorama 4y ago
It's worth noting that american ship design and planning and infrastructure is kind of struggling, with multiple public and meaningful failures in procurement and planning (zumwalt gun, zumwalt deckhouse material, the entire LCS program) with the end result being we will buy some ships from nations that had better results until we get things under control. Meanwhile, I think most cruise ships are built in the big, extremely experienced shipyards of china or south korea. America mostly doesn't build big ships anymore, excepting the supercarriers.
- shagie 4y ago
  Armchair chief of staffing... I'm gonna say that the current philosophy of one design that can be "easily" modified to do anything (fighter jet, naval ship, etc...) seem to be showing its costs compared to purpose built systems. It will likely take another generational update of the military to change that philosophy back. The "make a ship that can do everything" is likely met with a gleam in the contractor's accounting department eyes as they say "we'll need to do some R&D on this since it isn't something that we've successfully done before." I believe that this is a "the ideas are overly ambitious with the tangential goal of having parts made in every congressional district" rather than being first a useful system that is needed. ... I'm also sitting in an armchair at a keyboard so take my comments with the appropriate seasoning. The general "America is lacking on its heavy manufacturing industry" is a real concern but one that I'm not sure how it can be solved without getting into significant subsidizing (see the chip production) that starts rising hackles over at the WTO. How far do you have to subsidize those industries to get them to be competitive... or do you have a government naval yard that doesn't really care about being competitive with Marinette Marine (aside: https://www.wisconsinmaritime.org https://www.wisconsinmaritime.org is quite interesting).

shagie 4y ago

Accounting for inflation, 1950 to today would but $78M to $968M so...

mrguyorama 4y ago

It's worth noting that american ship design and planning and infrastructure is kind of struggling, with multiple public and meaningful failures in procurement and planning (zumwalt gun, zumwalt deckhouse material, the entire LCS program) with the end result being we will buy some ships from nations that had better results until we get things under control. Meanwhile, I think most cruise ships are built in the big, extremely experienced shipyards of china or south korea. America mostly doesn't build big ships anymore, excepting the supercarriers.

shagie 4y ago
Armchair chief of staffing... I'm gonna say that the current philosophy of one design that can be "easily" modified to do anything (fighter jet, naval ship, etc...) seem to be showing its costs compared to purpose built systems. It will likely take another generational update of the military to change that philosophy back. The "make a ship that can do everything" is likely met with a gleam in the contractor's accounting department eyes as they say "we'll need to do some R&D on this since it isn't something that we've successfully done before." I believe that this is a "the ideas are overly ambitious with the tangential goal of having parts made in every congressional district" rather than being first a useful system that is needed. ... I'm also sitting in an armchair at a keyboard so take my comments with the appropriate seasoning. The general "America is lacking on its heavy manufacturing industry" is a real concern but one that I'm not sure how it can be solved without getting into significant subsidizing (see the chip production) that starts rising hackles over at the WTO. How far do you have to subsidize those industries to get them to be competitive... or do you have a government naval yard that doesn't really care about being competitive with Marinette Marine (aside: https://www.wisconsinmaritime.org https://www.wisconsinmaritime.org is quite interesting).