US Military Ship Building / Industrial Base.

Sferrin

Sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
3 June 2011
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
19,284
Not sure if there is another thread dedicated to this topic so I thought I'd start one after seeing this:

https://maritime-executive.com/arti...korean-shipbuilders-for-destroyers-and-oilers

On the plus side maybe someone as finally decided the current situation can't continue. Our industrial base (and workforce, which is part of it) has atrophied to the point that it can't provide required hardware. That's not a problem that can be fixed in a year or two and we can't wait. Hopefully the politicians wake up and fix the problem rather than sitting on their asses now that they've found a band-aid.
 
Halcyon66 said:
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says 300,000 workers are needed to rebuild American shipbuilding—with jobs paying $100,000 without a college degree

https://fortune.com/2026/07/16/jpmo...roof-job-opportunity-philadelphia-investment/

Maybe some changes are on the way?

Regards,
Click to expand...
So to be clear, there are 16,000 people in the former Philadelphia Navy Yard building approximately 1.5 Jones Act civilian ships per year. That’s over 20% of the claimed 300,000 worker shortfall. All to build the Jones Act ships.
 
TinWing said:
So to be clear, there are 16,000 people in the former Philadelphia Navy Yard building approximately 1.5 Jones Act civilian ships per year. That’s over 20% of the claimed 300,000 worker shortfall. All to build the Jones Act ships.
Click to expand...
It's about military ships.
 
it's impossible to get the amount of ships we need in whatever time frame per the taiwan invasion date the intelligence community came up with. The idea of reaching some quantative parity AND rebuilding industrical base in the next couple years just laughable.

I think after the midterm the trump admin will get alot more aggressive with building destroyers oversea. Bringing in foreign workers had been hotly contested by MAGA base much to Trump's frustration. And of course, it's a political gift for Dems if it's before the midterm. Once the dust settle with midterm, it's easier to sway key congressmen as well given their seats are no longer up fro grab at home.
 
donnage99 said:
it's impossible to get the amount of ships we need in whatever time frame per the taiwan invasion date the intelligence community came up with. The idea of reaching some quantative parity AND rebuilding industrical base in the next couple years just laughable.

I think after the midterm the trump admin will get alot more aggressive with building destroyers oversea. Bringing in foreign workers had been hotly contested by MAGA base much to Trump's frustration. And of course, it's a political gift for Dems if it's before the midterm. Once the dust settle with midterm, it's easier to sway key congressmen as well given their seats are no longer up fro grab at home.
Click to expand...
We need foreign yards to build destroyers, not instead of US yards, but in addition to. And then get US shipbuilding up to snuff, but it's going to take DECADES. And it has to be done right, by people who know what they're doing. Not just another goddamn gov jobs program full of inefficiencies and stupidity (looking at things like DEI and ESG BS). AND avoiding future pols saying, "I think we like building our ships in South Korea. They do it better anyway", as they cash their "campaign donations". Just so much that would have to go right. I don't have a lot of hope given how corrupt D.C. is.
 
Sferrin said:
We need foreign yards to build destroyers, not instead of US yards, but in addition to. And then get US shipbuilding up to snuff, but it's going to take DECADES. And it has to be done right, by people who know what they're doing. Not just another goddamn gov jobs program full of inefficiencies and stupidity (looking at things like DEI and ESG BS). AND avoiding future pols saying, "I think we like building our ships in South Korea. They do it better anyway", as they cash their "campaign donations". Just so much that would have to go right. I don't have a lot of hope given how corrupt D.C. is.
Click to expand...

No U.S. yard is run by the U.S. government. They're all GOCO.

This extends to design as well, but design was government until about 30 years ago, so that lasted longer. The inefficiencies are inherent to two factors: local laws preventing eminent domain of businesses and suburbs by decree with subsequent relocation of the population to other parts of the area, and private market factors encouraging "right sizing" and reduction or elimination of redundancies, which makes scaling up tedious and labor intensive. In an economic climate where labor is the most expensive thing.

Both of these mean that the U.S. is just tapped out in terms of expansion potential, without doing radical stuff like building into the ocean or causeways, and conscripting laborers into the job. Easily doable in the PRC which has money and a large agrarian population to draw. Not so easy in the U.S. which would need to forcibly levee or pay extremely large salaries for relatively low skill work.
 
IMO the only proper answer for the USN to the shipyard situation is to NOT stare at ship hulls like some 40 years of service in the navy insider with a severe case of group think and tunnel vision.

Land-based assets can do A LOT. You don't need a single warship or submarine to sink an entire navy.

Convoy defence (in case of a pacific war) can be tiered by threat level and available resources

1) CVBG and amphibious task forces: Use Arleigh Burkes as everyone is used to, there are enough for that (keep in mind CVNs on solo patrol are a peacetime thing - wartime CVBGs would feature multiple CVNs, thus less need for escorts per CVN)
2) Hawaii-Japan lane: Imported frigates (such as the already equipment-wise americanised Australian version of New FFM/Improved Mogami)
3) CONUS-Hawaii and San Diego-Panama: Self-defending convoy with containerised solutions
4) San Diego-Anchorage coastal route: Land-based aviation, SOSUS, maybe a couple CAPTAS-4 tugs, land-based operation of minehunting drones
5) Atlantic and Carribbean: Rely on allies (if you don't insist on turning them into adversaries)

Meanwhile, supply forward bases with replenishment ships that can self-defend, with cheaply-built (diesel-electric) cargo submarines, C-17s.
Use auxiliary cruisers with helo to enforce a (very) distant naval blockade, backed up by land-based air power.

I wrote about this before:
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2019/07/how-to-fix-united-states-navy.html
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2023/07/shipbuilding-disparity-and-usn.html
 
Sferrin said:
We need foreign yards to build destroyers, not instead of US yards, but in addition to. And then get US shipbuilding up to snuff, but it's going to take DECADES. And it has to be done right, by people who know what they're doing. Not just another goddamn gov jobs program full of inefficiencies and stupidity (looking at things like DEI and ESG BS). AND avoiding future pols saying, "I think we like building our ships in South Korea. They do it better anyway", as they cash their "campaign donations". Just so much that would have to go right. I don't have a lot of hope given how corrupt D.C. is.
Click to expand...
We're on the same page. rebuilding industrial force needs to start now but there has to be a realistic understanding that it is a long term goal by the metric of decades, not years.

As far as DEI or ESG. I think it can be irritating and a distraction in anecdotal instances but they are hardly major contributing factors, at least with shipbuilding. South Korea actually has way more draconian and obnoxious rules when it comes to environmental impacts or gender representation but their ship building still kicks so much ass compared to us.

I think major factors are we gave up commercial shipbuilding, which shrunk the workforce and expertise. Years of no real peer threats and no central decade long planning lead contractors to become obsessed with risk reductions, and short term money because programs can get canceled at anytime and more likely than not.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom