4 ms·

Some #s. 39-45: - US, pop 130m, 40m Gross Tons. ~0.05m GT/m 2023: - JP, 125m, 10m GT, ~0.08m GT/m (kind of in decline) - SKR, 51m, 18m GT, ~0.35m GT/m (inc

Some #s. 39-45: - US, pop 130m, 40m Gross Tons. ~0.05m GT/m 2023: - JP, 125m, 10m GT, ~0.08m GT/m (kind of in decline) - SKR, 51m, 18m GT, ~0.35m GT/m (increasing in value) - PRC, 1400m, 33 GT, ~0.02m GT/m (increasing++ in GT and value) If modern US was serious as efficient as JP or SKR, it can do 30-120m GT per year. Meanwhile PRC casually building about entire 6 year US WW2 ship building program per year (2024 puts it close to 37m GT). But it's not out of question for US to be competitive in a few generations. But also kind of lulz that SKR peacetime ship building is like 7x more efficient than US during WW2.

chii 1y ago
> But it's not out of question for US to be competitive in a few generations. i think it is - as in, if the need ever arises in a war, the loss would be far sooner than the time required for "competitiveness". That is, of course, this new war is going to play out the same as the last one. But as with all history, it only rhymes.
- maxglute 1y ago
  Yes, IMO why DoD wanks about replicator and drone hellscape, when PRC doing the same thing. Everyone is trying to sink each others entire surface fleet... but those with industrial base (even if degraded) can reconstitute faster, i.e. PRC navy is "only" 3m GTs... about 1 month of current production, 2 months for all of USN @4.5m GT (yes 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month), but just to give scale of how "small" modern navies, including USN, are relative to modern shipbuilding. I also doubt US built ships will ever be globally commercially competitive vs east asian builders (or whoever comes next), but the point is modern ship building has gotten efficient, and it's feasible for US to reshore enough ship building for domestic needs. I think for American's sake, it's illustrative to stop nostalgical pine for US WW2 ship building prowess, because it's really meagre compared to modern ship building scale. Also be aware that if US WW2 shipping buildig dial was set to 10, PRC set the dial to not just 11, but 50. The consolation is it's very feasible for US to move dial from current 2 back to 10, perhaps even 20. And for US strategic interests (and ego) that's probably enough.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    Unless if you blow up the shipbuilding infrastructure too.
    - maxglute 1y ago
      Hence "even if degraded" / "reconstitute faster"... relative post war reconstituting shipbuilding including infra is downstream of capable workforce. During war surface industry can't be protected (likely including CONUS). Post war, shipyards / industrial supply chains can be rebuild faster than it takes to train the workforce to man them. Shipyards also inherently fortified structures, the labour intensive part - earthworks, concrete - are hard to crack, at scale. Jiangnan (launched more GTs than whole of US post WW2 production), is like ~5x the size of all WW2 JP shipyards combined, it's not something US can substantively blowup. PRC a whole different scale of adversary vs what US historically calibrated to fight conventionally. VS relatively weaker USSR, US plan was basically to nuke their industry, nuke the fulda gap - conventional forces not scaled to cripple peer powers in their backyard. Regardless domestic shipbuilding isn't about ongoing sustaining war efforts anymore, it's about recovering from one, especially for maritime powers who knows their entire surface fleet could be wiped.
trhway 1y ago
>But also kind of lulz that SKR peacetime ship building is like 7x more efficient than US during WW2. there is huge difference between building 1 x 500k GT container ship and 50 ships x 10k GT About future sea based fighting - Ukrainian sea drones armed with Sidewinders have already shot down Russian helicopters and one Su-30 fighter (may be even 2). https://www.twz.com/sea/aim-9-sidewinder-armed-ukrainian-drone-boat-what-we-know https://www.twz.com/sea/aim-9-sidewinder-armed-ukrainian-dro... A small sea battle between such a drone and a manned Russian fast light seacraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djKIu4gC_sQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djKIu4gC_sQ The drone lost this time, yet one can clearly see potential if the drone were also armed with a small anti-ship missile or just a radar guided machine gun (or they may be organized in a pack where each drone carries one type of weaponry while still staying small and agile). The poor Russian Marines had really hard time and that against just one remotely controlled drone - when the drones become fully autonomous with more suitable weaponry, and attacking as a pack instead of alone, humans wouldn't stand a chance. I’m ruminating about making some very cheap and simple anti drone systems - the idea is how to respond if say in a small regional theater an adversary launches a million of drones. Don’t see many working in that direction while it should be a large market soon.
- maxglute 1y ago
  Japan specializes in higher value small/medium size ships, which they do at annual >US WW2 scale. Modern surface combatants much more sophisticated than liberty ships, but broader point is US WW2 ship building tier effort is not whole of nation wartime endeaver anymore, especially with 2.5x larger US pop. Even if US pivots to smaller hulls / unmanned fleet, larger ships still part of future navy force design and there's strategic use for large commerical ship building if US planners insist on maritime ship capacity. At the end of the day, if US wants to be a maritime power, it needs to have a maritime industrial base, even if maritime expeditionary model likely won't survive a peer war.
  - AYBABTME 1y ago
    Labor costs are structural problems in the US economy. A policy of maritime industry will not work, it hasn't since the foundation of the country.
ramesh31 1y ago
The Liberty ships were little more than motorized barges, with an expected lifespan of about 5 years. Comparing their tonnage to modern shipbuilding is silly.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  Don't forget the concrete ships. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-concrete-fleet-of-wwii/ https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-concrete-fleet...
- maxglute 1y ago
  >is silly No it's the entire point. I'm illustrating how US WW2 shipbuilding is pretty mid relative to modern shipbuilding, and that US, on paper should be able to exceed their WW2 output. Currently JP, roughly pop size of US during WW2, is out producing peak US WW2 ship building in gross tonnage. They are known for building small/medium size higher value hulls closer to WW2 size. Modern shipbuilding during PEACE TIME with a competent workforce and industrial commitment, is capable of producing more GT of hulls with more complexity than US whole of society mobilization during WW2. Of course modern surface combatants are very complex, but USN force design 2045 is all about distributed lethality on less complex hulls + attritable autonomy. Lots of room for 5-10 year lifespan sensor/missile boats.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  They proved durable enough for the high seas (something you generally can't say about barges) and many made multiple crossings of the oceans and plenty went on to live typical lengths of service in commercial use afterwards. I wouldn't call them "motorized barges".
jabl 1y ago
To get an idea of shipbuilding productivity it would maybe be more useful to compare the number of people employed in shipbuilding rather than the population of the entire country. (yes, of course total population is one limit on how many ships you could build in theory, but societies tend to have many other priorities than building ships.)
- maxglute 1y ago
  The idea is what level of ship building is possible if a country prioritizes it by building the relevant workforce and industrial policy. Cursory research suggest US and SKR both ~120k employment... which kind of makes disparity even more ridiculous. Almost unbelievable, I'll have to check numbers again when I have time. Otherwise my understanding is US shipbuilding incompetence is labour - attrition rate at 20-30%, can't develop mature workforce if turnover every 3 years. Because work conditions shit and pay comparable to fast food and retail. IIRC result is a ddg that should take 6 years to build is taking 9 because constant retraining and reworking. There's actually plenty of orders / backlog, but the workforce conditions sucks.
distances 1y ago
Your numbers don't match. For the first case, 40/130 equals 0,31 GT/m
- maxglute 1y ago
  0.31/6 for over 6 years.
  - distances 1y ago
    Right, thanks!

chii 1y ago

> But it's not out of question for US to be competitive in a few generations. i think it is - as in, if the need ever arises in a war, the loss would be far sooner than the time required for "competitiveness". That is, of course, this new war is going to play out the same as the last one. But as with all history, it only rhymes.

maxglute 1y ago
Yes, IMO why DoD wanks about replicator and drone hellscape, when PRC doing the same thing. Everyone is trying to sink each others entire surface fleet... but those with industrial base (even if degraded) can reconstitute faster, i.e. PRC navy is "only" 3m GTs... about 1 month of current production, 2 months for all of USN @4.5m GT (yes 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month), but just to give scale of how "small" modern navies, including USN, are relative to modern shipbuilding. I also doubt US built ships will ever be globally commercially competitive vs east asian builders (or whoever comes next), but the point is modern ship building has gotten efficient, and it's feasible for US to reshore enough ship building for domestic needs. I think for American's sake, it's illustrative to stop nostalgical pine for US WW2 ship building prowess, because it's really meagre compared to modern ship building scale. Also be aware that if US WW2 shipping buildig dial was set to 10, PRC set the dial to not just 11, but 50. The consolation is it's very feasible for US to move dial from current 2 back to 10, perhaps even 20. And for US strategic interests (and ego) that's probably enough.
- corimaith 1y ago
  Unless if you blow up the shipbuilding infrastructure too.
  - maxglute 1y ago
    Hence "even if degraded" / "reconstitute faster"... relative post war reconstituting shipbuilding including infra is downstream of capable workforce. During war surface industry can't be protected (likely including CONUS). Post war, shipyards / industrial supply chains can be rebuild faster than it takes to train the workforce to man them. Shipyards also inherently fortified structures, the labour intensive part - earthworks, concrete - are hard to crack, at scale. Jiangnan (launched more GTs than whole of US post WW2 production), is like ~5x the size of all WW2 JP shipyards combined, it's not something US can substantively blowup. PRC a whole different scale of adversary vs what US historically calibrated to fight conventionally. VS relatively weaker USSR, US plan was basically to nuke their industry, nuke the fulda gap - conventional forces not scaled to cripple peer powers in their backyard. Regardless domestic shipbuilding isn't about ongoing sustaining war efforts anymore, it's about recovering from one, especially for maritime powers who knows their entire surface fleet could be wiped.

trhway 1y ago

>But also kind of lulz that SKR peacetime ship building is like 7x more efficient than US during WW2. there is huge difference between building 1 x 500k GT container ship and 50 ships x 10k GT About future sea based fighting - Ukrainian sea drones armed with Sidewinders have already shot down Russian helicopters and one Su-30 fighter (may be even 2). https://www.twz.com/sea/aim-9-sidewinder-armed-ukrainian-drone-boat-what-we-know https://www.twz.com/sea/aim-9-sidewinder-armed-ukrainian-dro... A small sea battle between such a drone and a manned Russian fast light seacraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djKIu4gC_sQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djKIu4gC_sQ The drone lost this time, yet one can clearly see potential if the drone were also armed with a small anti-ship missile or just a radar guided machine gun (or they may be organized in a pack where each drone carries one type of weaponry while still staying small and agile). The poor Russian Marines had really hard time and that against just one remotely controlled drone - when the drones become fully autonomous with more suitable weaponry, and attacking as a pack instead of alone, humans wouldn't stand a chance. I’m ruminating about making some very cheap and simple anti drone systems - the idea is how to respond if say in a small regional theater an adversary launches a million of drones. Don’t see many working in that direction while it should be a large market soon.

maxglute 1y ago
Japan specializes in higher value small/medium size ships, which they do at annual >US WW2 scale. Modern surface combatants much more sophisticated than liberty ships, but broader point is US WW2 ship building tier effort is not whole of nation wartime endeaver anymore, especially with 2.5x larger US pop. Even if US pivots to smaller hulls / unmanned fleet, larger ships still part of future navy force design and there's strategic use for large commerical ship building if US planners insist on maritime ship capacity. At the end of the day, if US wants to be a maritime power, it needs to have a maritime industrial base, even if maritime expeditionary model likely won't survive a peer war.
- AYBABTME 1y ago
  Labor costs are structural problems in the US economy. A policy of maritime industry will not work, it hasn't since the foundation of the country.

ramesh31 1y ago

The Liberty ships were little more than motorized barges, with an expected lifespan of about 5 years. Comparing their tonnage to modern shipbuilding is silly.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Don't forget the concrete ships. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-concrete-fleet-of-wwii/ https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-concrete-fleet...
maxglute 1y ago
>is silly No it's the entire point. I'm illustrating how US WW2 shipbuilding is pretty mid relative to modern shipbuilding, and that US, on paper should be able to exceed their WW2 output. Currently JP, roughly pop size of US during WW2, is out producing peak US WW2 ship building in gross tonnage. They are known for building small/medium size higher value hulls closer to WW2 size. Modern shipbuilding during PEACE TIME with a competent workforce and industrial commitment, is capable of producing more GT of hulls with more complexity than US whole of society mobilization during WW2. Of course modern surface combatants are very complex, but USN force design 2045 is all about distributed lethality on less complex hulls + attritable autonomy. Lots of room for 5-10 year lifespan sensor/missile boats.
potato3732842 1y ago
They proved durable enough for the high seas (something you generally can't say about barges) and many made multiple crossings of the oceans and plenty went on to live typical lengths of service in commercial use afterwards. I wouldn't call them "motorized barges".

jabl 1y ago

To get an idea of shipbuilding productivity it would maybe be more useful to compare the number of people employed in shipbuilding rather than the population of the entire country. (yes, of course total population is one limit on how many ships you could build in theory, but societies tend to have many other priorities than building ships.)

maxglute 1y ago
The idea is what level of ship building is possible if a country prioritizes it by building the relevant workforce and industrial policy. Cursory research suggest US and SKR both ~120k employment... which kind of makes disparity even more ridiculous. Almost unbelievable, I'll have to check numbers again when I have time. Otherwise my understanding is US shipbuilding incompetence is labour - attrition rate at 20-30%, can't develop mature workforce if turnover every 3 years. Because work conditions shit and pay comparable to fast food and retail. IIRC result is a ddg that should take 6 years to build is taking 9 because constant retraining and reworking. There's actually plenty of orders / backlog, but the workforce conditions sucks.

distances 1y ago

Your numbers don't match. For the first case, 40/130 equals 0,31 GT/m

maxglute 1y ago
0.31/6 for over 6 years.
- distances 1y ago
  Right, thanks!