5 ms·

The article claims that the US has over 100,000 shipyard workers, while Japan has about 70,000 and yet produces 20x more tonnage. This suggests that there's a l

The article claims that the US has over 100,000 shipyard workers, while Japan has about 70,000 and yet produces 20x more tonnage. This suggests that there's a lot more to it than just US deindustrialization.

dylan604 3y ago
But it also goes into some detail about why that's true as well. Essentially, to me the biggest issue is that Defense spending is a Congressional pork trough. Instead of centralizing for efficiency, everything is spread out so everyone gets their share. It's a decent report for someone that has the merest of an idea what the Navy does/uses/needs. It shows how thoughts about various aspects of a ship's needs have changed over the years including walking back from implemented changes as they've responded to opponents' reactions to those changes. It's also in an interesting format seeing the difference from a report vs a presentation style slide deck that must be so tempting to use. Glad to see that actual reports are alive and well outside of the tech bubble.
- practicemaths 3y ago
  Centralized what exactly for efficiency in defense spending? edit: downvote if you want but it's rather rude to do so with out providing an answer to my question. It comes off more like you're offended that your assumption in thought is being questioned.
- gamepsys 3y ago
  I don't think a single central source for ship building is probably the best path. We should probably have one on each coast at minimum.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    It should take large number of bombers or ICBMs to render the US unable to build or repair her Navy. In World War II we hijacked most of the industrial base for the war machine. After the war, there was incentive to be certain that the US was capable of outfitting the Armed Forces regardless of whether manufacturing slowly shifted overseas. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are too geographically close to a number of likely antagonists in the next global conflict. In the latter case, the distance might be negative. They may be occupied or their industry bombed to dust as the opening moves in a protracted conflict. There is something to be said for the DoD to effectively be paying rent (or a retainer, if you prefer that analogy) to Western Hemisphere manufacturing, with a large fraction in the continental US.
floxy 3y ago
What moats do U.S. shipyards have that prevent disruption? Or why doesn't someone spin up the SpaceX for shipbuilding?
- teruakohatu 3y ago
  > Or why doesn't someone spin up the SpaceX for shipbuilding? Do VCs invest in industries that are so mature that they are almost as old and civilisation itself?
  - teyrana 3y ago
    "Anduril industries" has entered the chat... Long story short, yes, VCs have entered the defense industry (writ large) and although I have my doubts about whether said VC money will achieve FB-like returns, they are trying. And to answer the GP poster.... The industry is not "ripe for disruption" because it's dominated more by the "invisible hand of the lobbyist" much more than the "invisible hand of the market". Fwiw, from my ~20 years in the defense industry.
  - Teever 3y ago
    You say this as if there's no innovation in modern shipbuilding, as if the Koreans and Japanese who dominate the industry have just gotten really good at lashing together logs to make really big rafts. That would be like saying that VC's don't invest in communication companies because communication is as old as civilization, and who wants to invest in semaphores and stone tablets anyways?
  - obmelvin 3y ago
    You might find this recent article interesting about the uptick in people moving from Pentagon -> VC, as opposed to Pentagon -> Prime Defense Contractor. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/politics/pentagon-venture-capitalists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/politics/pentagon-vent...
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    VCs weren't behind SpaceX. Musk invested his own money.
pi-e-sigma 3y ago
That's exactly how deindustrialization looks like. Efficiency goes down because nobody knows how to build ships anymore (metaphorically speaking), so more people are required than before. A lousy analogy: think about history of agriculture mechanization but in reverse: the less mechanization the more work needs to be done manually again and the machines that are still in operation are harder and harder to operate because spare parts and technical expertise are getting harder to come by.
roenxi 3y ago
Why the implication that we measure industrialisation in number of people? People are almost categorically not a factor in industrialisation. It is all about processes, technologies, expertise, organisation and economics. The English speaking world has been on a decades-long campaign to reign in industry. Energy availability has been reduced. Environmental protection has been given supremacy. Manufacturing outsourced to Asia. An impenetrable net of regulations put in place to force businesses to conform to the average. There is the pattern of bailing out incompetent managers so that the financial system doesn't have to reform. In that environment, number of people is a weak metric. The US has people, educated people and otherwise great people. I don't think at any point anyone has accused this of being a people problem. The issue is that capable people are being prevented from improving the situation.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > The issue is that capable people are being prevented from improving the situation. What situation, specifically, needs to be improved? The US Navy does not, at present, have any need whatsoever to drastically increase the size of its fleet. Every ship that gets built is a ship that needs to be manned and maintained, which siphons money from elsewhere. We can bemoan the inefficiency of the existing shipbuilders, but that's just how the US sells welfare programs to conservative voters. If you think that a hot war with China is in the cards, forget investing in shipbuilding infrastructure and instead put that money towards onshoring the rest of the national critical supply chain, much of which is in far more dire straits (ahem) than the shipyards.
  - thereisnospork 3y ago
    Shipbuilding inefficient and the lack of onshore critical supply chain are two symptoms of the same problem: whether it's chips, shells, or ships: production capacity is critical in any prolonged conflict - which is something we've been agnostically gutting and impeding. It's desirable that we be able to build ships well[0] because being able to build ships well (or not) is a reasonable proxy for being able to build drones, fighter planes, or ballistic missles (whatever the next war calls for). [0]Read: unacceptable for it to be otherwise for a superpower that would like to stay one. Actually cranking out ships is another thing but the capacity needs to be there (and tested/validated accordingly).
Spooky23 3y ago
Not really. It’s more about the politicization of military contracting. Every congressional district gets a piece of the pie, so the process is incredibly inefficient by design. For all the hooh-rah, the US military is probably the greatest make work program since the pyramids. Many industries, especially tech, exist due to the largesse of the military. When you hear pandering politicians quack about efficiency, they are a fool or a liar.
mdorazio 3y ago
What kind of tonnage, though? A huge containership is easier to build than a modern nuclear submarine, for example, and gives you a hell of a lot more tonnage.
cyberax 3y ago
Tonnage by itself is not a great comparison. E.g. one super-tanker (~250000) would have about twice the tonnage as an aircraft carrier (~150000). There's no doubt that the US shipbuilding is stagnating, but it's not _that_ much stagnating.

dylan604 3y ago

But it also goes into some detail about why that's true as well. Essentially, to me the biggest issue is that Defense spending is a Congressional pork trough. Instead of centralizing for efficiency, everything is spread out so everyone gets their share. It's a decent report for someone that has the merest of an idea what the Navy does/uses/needs. It shows how thoughts about various aspects of a ship's needs have changed over the years including walking back from implemented changes as they've responded to opponents' reactions to those changes. It's also in an interesting format seeing the difference from a report vs a presentation style slide deck that must be so tempting to use. Glad to see that actual reports are alive and well outside of the tech bubble.

practicemaths 3y ago
Centralized what exactly for efficiency in defense spending? edit: downvote if you want but it's rather rude to do so with out providing an answer to my question. It comes off more like you're offended that your assumption in thought is being questioned.
gamepsys 3y ago
I don't think a single central source for ship building is probably the best path. We should probably have one on each coast at minimum.
- hinkley 3y ago
  It should take large number of bombers or ICBMs to render the US unable to build or repair her Navy. In World War II we hijacked most of the industrial base for the war machine. After the war, there was incentive to be certain that the US was capable of outfitting the Armed Forces regardless of whether manufacturing slowly shifted overseas. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are too geographically close to a number of likely antagonists in the next global conflict. In the latter case, the distance might be negative. They may be occupied or their industry bombed to dust as the opening moves in a protracted conflict. There is something to be said for the DoD to effectively be paying rent (or a retainer, if you prefer that analogy) to Western Hemisphere manufacturing, with a large fraction in the continental US.

floxy 3y ago

What moats do U.S. shipyards have that prevent disruption? Or why doesn't someone spin up the SpaceX for shipbuilding?

teruakohatu 3y ago
> Or why doesn't someone spin up the SpaceX for shipbuilding? Do VCs invest in industries that are so mature that they are almost as old and civilisation itself?
- teyrana 3y ago
  "Anduril industries" has entered the chat... Long story short, yes, VCs have entered the defense industry (writ large) and although I have my doubts about whether said VC money will achieve FB-like returns, they are trying. And to answer the GP poster.... The industry is not "ripe for disruption" because it's dominated more by the "invisible hand of the lobbyist" much more than the "invisible hand of the market". Fwiw, from my ~20 years in the defense industry.
- Teever 3y ago
  You say this as if there's no innovation in modern shipbuilding, as if the Koreans and Japanese who dominate the industry have just gotten really good at lashing together logs to make really big rafts. That would be like saying that VC's don't invest in communication companies because communication is as old as civilization, and who wants to invest in semaphores and stone tablets anyways?
- obmelvin 3y ago
  You might find this recent article interesting about the uptick in people moving from Pentagon -> VC, as opposed to Pentagon -> Prime Defense Contractor. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/politics/pentagon-venture-capitalists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/politics/pentagon-vent...
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  VCs weren't behind SpaceX. Musk invested his own money.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago

That's exactly how deindustrialization looks like. Efficiency goes down because nobody knows how to build ships anymore (metaphorically speaking), so more people are required than before. A lousy analogy: think about history of agriculture mechanization but in reverse: the less mechanization the more work needs to be done manually again and the machines that are still in operation are harder and harder to operate because spare parts and technical expertise are getting harder to come by.

roenxi 3y ago

Why the implication that we measure industrialisation in number of people? People are almost categorically not a factor in industrialisation. It is all about processes, technologies, expertise, organisation and economics. The English speaking world has been on a decades-long campaign to reign in industry. Energy availability has been reduced. Environmental protection has been given supremacy. Manufacturing outsourced to Asia. An impenetrable net of regulations put in place to force businesses to conform to the average. There is the pattern of bailing out incompetent managers so that the financial system doesn't have to reform. In that environment, number of people is a weak metric. The US has people, educated people and otherwise great people. I don't think at any point anyone has accused this of being a people problem. The issue is that capable people are being prevented from improving the situation.

kibwen 3y ago
> The issue is that capable people are being prevented from improving the situation. What situation, specifically, needs to be improved? The US Navy does not, at present, have any need whatsoever to drastically increase the size of its fleet. Every ship that gets built is a ship that needs to be manned and maintained, which siphons money from elsewhere. We can bemoan the inefficiency of the existing shipbuilders, but that's just how the US sells welfare programs to conservative voters. If you think that a hot war with China is in the cards, forget investing in shipbuilding infrastructure and instead put that money towards onshoring the rest of the national critical supply chain, much of which is in far more dire straits (ahem) than the shipyards.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  Shipbuilding inefficient and the lack of onshore critical supply chain are two symptoms of the same problem: whether it's chips, shells, or ships: production capacity is critical in any prolonged conflict - which is something we've been agnostically gutting and impeding. It's desirable that we be able to build ships well[0] because being able to build ships well (or not) is a reasonable proxy for being able to build drones, fighter planes, or ballistic missles (whatever the next war calls for). [0]Read: unacceptable for it to be otherwise for a superpower that would like to stay one. Actually cranking out ships is another thing but the capacity needs to be there (and tested/validated accordingly).

Spooky23 3y ago

Not really. It’s more about the politicization of military contracting. Every congressional district gets a piece of the pie, so the process is incredibly inefficient by design. For all the hooh-rah, the US military is probably the greatest make work program since the pyramids. Many industries, especially tech, exist due to the largesse of the military. When you hear pandering politicians quack about efficiency, they are a fool or a liar.

mdorazio 3y ago

What kind of tonnage, though? A huge containership is easier to build than a modern nuclear submarine, for example, and gives you a hell of a lot more tonnage.

cyberax 3y ago

Tonnage by itself is not a great comparison. E.g. one super-tanker (~250000) would have about twice the tonnage as an aircraft carrier (~150000). There's no doubt that the US shipbuilding is stagnating, but it's not _that_ much stagnating.