4 ms·

> But there are shipyards in other high-income countries e.g. in Europe […] China is #1, but Korea is #2, and Japan is #3: * https://www.visualcapitalist.com/

> But there are shipyards in other high-income countries e.g. in Europe […] China is #1, but Korea is #2, and Japan is #3: * https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-shipbuilding/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-s... Is Japan a low-wage country? 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. While civilian-like designs are built there, encourage those same allies to build US-stationed shipyards and order a number of military-oriented designs to help boost domestic knowledge: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Sealift_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Sealift_Command Note: building one of a design is not good, and two is probably just as bad. If you're going to order ships, putting in an order of >6 is the only way to get economies of scale. Another option would be to order civilian-like designs with a 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically.

ethbr1 2y ago
> 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 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically. This has historically been the biggest problem with the US Navy -- they're really dumb / bad at specifications. Imho, 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. It's a terrible joke at this point that the USN starts with "We'll pick an off the shelf foreign design" and then customizes it so much it's no longer mass producible.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_with_Canada_and_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_w... > and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards). Canadian shipyards are actually relatively busy nowadays: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy To the point that some things will not be built locally: * https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-out-costs-for-new-sub-fleet https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-... * https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2024/09/government-of-canada-announces-progress-on-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-procurement.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/20... Not sure if some more civilian-leaning building capacity could perhaps be available.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    My theory is that Trump is playing the Nixon madman strategy w/ regards to trade. If everyone thinks he's crazy, he thinks he'll get better deals without having to do anything painful. And for optics purposes, all he needs is "some win", not something that materially matters. But as with all Trumpisms, we'll see. :\ I bring up Canada and Mexico because using their shipyard capacity (especially Mexico) would be a win-win: forex investment in heavy industry for them, competitive labor costs for the US, and the US Navy gets recapitalized.
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > My theory is that Trump is playing the Nixon madman strategy w/ regards to trade. If everyone thinks he's crazy, he thinks he'll get better deals without having to do anything painful. Have you tried listening to his speeches at rallies? Not the clips or extracts, and not transcripts, but the full speeches from start to finish. Dude is all over the place. It's often hard to tell what planet he's on. During one of the presidential debates he went on about immigrants eating cats and dogs.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        I have and watched that full debate. It's weird though, because "he's crazy" seems overly reductionist. Or at least, he's crazy in the same way George W Bush was dumb. Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage.
        throw0101c 2y ago
        > Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage. I do not believe it is a façade in either case (Bush, Trump).
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Bush W is one of only ~10 US presidents to have an advanced degree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_education https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Un... It's a mistake to ignore facts because they're inconvenient to what we want to believe. And thinking Trump only won 2 elections because of other people is an difficult fit with reality. Just because you or I dislike someone doesn't mean we should discount them.
- bluGill 2y ago
  >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 #3 on the list of concerns. Since I have family in the Navy, and want those ships to protect me if there is a war I agree with the navy. Cost is important, but it is not the most important thing.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    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.
themaninthedark 2y ago
Having worked in Japan; Yes most certainly it is a low wage country. >The average salary in Japan is 6,200,000 Japanese Yen (JPY) or 39818 USD per year in 2024 (as per the exchange rate in May 2024). https://www.timedoctor.com/blog/average-salary-in-japan https://www.timedoctor.com/blog/average-salary-in-japan The low wages and overtime culture that exists there is the greatest contributor to their lack of marriage and low birthrate in my opinion. Korea has the same issue from my understanding.
jabl 2y ago
> China is #1, but Korea is #2, and Japan is #3 Yes, I know. > Is Japan a low-wage country? I never claimed that in my post. E.g. means "exempli gratia", or "for example". Thus the statement "shipyards in other high-income countries e.g. in Europe" meaning "shipyards in other high-income countries for example in Europe". Which does not preclude other high-income countries existing outside Europe.

ethbr1 2y ago

> 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 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically. This has historically been the biggest problem with the US Navy -- they're really dumb / bad at specifications. Imho, 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. It's a terrible joke at this point that the USN starts with "We'll pick an off the shelf foreign design" and then customizes it so much it's no longer mass producible.

throw0101c 2y ago
> Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_with_Canada_and_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_w... > and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards). Canadian shipyards are actually relatively busy nowadays: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy To the point that some things will not be built locally: * https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-out-costs-for-new-sub-fleet https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-... * https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2024/09/government-of-canada-announces-progress-on-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-procurement.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/20... Not sure if some more civilian-leaning building capacity could perhaps be available.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  My theory is that Trump is playing the Nixon madman strategy w/ regards to trade. If everyone thinks he's crazy, he thinks he'll get better deals without having to do anything painful. And for optics purposes, all he needs is "some win", not something that materially matters. But as with all Trumpisms, we'll see. :\ I bring up Canada and Mexico because using their shipyard capacity (especially Mexico) would be a win-win: forex investment in heavy industry for them, competitive labor costs for the US, and the US Navy gets recapitalized.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > My theory is that Trump is playing the Nixon madman strategy w/ regards to trade. If everyone thinks he's crazy, he thinks he'll get better deals without having to do anything painful. Have you tried listening to his speeches at rallies? Not the clips or extracts, and not transcripts, but the full speeches from start to finish. Dude is all over the place. It's often hard to tell what planet he's on. During one of the presidential debates he went on about immigrants eating cats and dogs.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      I have and watched that full debate. It's weird though, because "he's crazy" seems overly reductionist. Or at least, he's crazy in the same way George W Bush was dumb. Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage.
      - throw0101c 2y ago
        > Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage. I do not believe it is a façade in either case (Bush, Trump).
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Bush W is one of only ~10 US presidents to have an advanced degree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_education https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Un... It's a mistake to ignore facts because they're inconvenient to what we want to believe. And thinking Trump only won 2 elections because of other people is an difficult fit with reality. Just because you or I dislike someone doesn't mean we should discount them.
bluGill 2y ago
>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 #3 on the list of concerns. Since I have family in the Navy, and want those ships to protect me if there is a war I agree with the navy. Cost is important, but it is not the most important thing.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  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.

themaninthedark 2y ago

Having worked in Japan; Yes most certainly it is a low wage country. >The average salary in Japan is 6,200,000 Japanese Yen (JPY) or 39818 USD per year in 2024 (as per the exchange rate in May 2024). https://www.timedoctor.com/blog/average-salary-in-japan https://www.timedoctor.com/blog/average-salary-in-japan The low wages and overtime culture that exists there is the greatest contributor to their lack of marriage and low birthrate in my opinion. Korea has the same issue from my understanding.

jabl 2y ago

> China is #1, but Korea is #2, and Japan is #3 Yes, I know. > Is Japan a low-wage country? I never claimed that in my post. E.g. means "exempli gratia", or "for example". Thus the statement "shipyards in other high-income countries e.g. in Europe" meaning "shipyards in other high-income countries for example in Europe". Which does not preclude other high-income countries existing outside Europe.