Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[Lc89]

Something I feel gets losses a lot in this conversation.

We need to understand that American shipbuilding is fundamentally uncompetitive. South Korea and the PRC can build ships at twice the speed for half the price. And this isn’t a coincidence.

Shipbuilding is not cheap, especially for the yard. Labor is expensive. OSHA lawsuits are expensive. Compliance with environmental laws is expensive. Developing new infrastructure is expensive. Being forced to eat the loss from fixed price contracts is expensive. If the yards want to maintain any sort of profit margin, operating costs must be kept to the bare minimum. This is the reason McDonald’s pays more than entry level positions at HII.

But those are American yards. South Korea has less strict OSHA laws, less strict environmental regulations, and their people will work 60 hours a week for mere pennies. For the lack of better phrasing, white people are expensive, as the cost of living here is more expensive. Doing virtually everything in America is expensive. And regardless of who is in the White House, that trend won’t reverse.

Simply put, there is no scenario where the free market will allow domestic shipbuilding to regenerate to historical levels. The mere “survival” of the domestic shipbuilding industry is solely because of protectionist economic policies that mandate domestic construction of American-flagged vessels.

If the Jones Act dies, or we start building ships in Korea, the U.S. will permanent stop building ships. And there will be no recovery. The fact of the matter is American shipbuilding will never be competitive. It will never be able to stand on its own in the free market. There’s a reason why nearly all domestic orders from the federal government.

There would be no need to repeal the entire law (The Jones act). There are exceptions, however. The first step would be for non-contiguous US states and territories to be able to get waivers from the president. Why not do that is ridiculous, because it is only a small change that could make a big difference. You don't want Chinese ships to do interstate cabotage? No problem, they can be banned from the coasts for national security reasons.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think the other thing we have to come to grips with is that the nature of naval warfare *might* be changing and that large surface ships may no longer be competitive in peer warfare. Currently the trend is for ever decreasing costs and abilities for anti ship platforms and ISR, while the complete opposite for modern DDG types. Barring a major technological change that pushes the cost effectiveness ratio in favor of the defense, we may be seeing the end of surface ships based sea control as we know it.

Now of course we have seen technological scares like this before - the torpedo boat, the submarine, the anti ship missile, etc. in the end surface navies adapted to meet the threat. But generally what came out of each technological revolution was a new type of ship to address the threat, with the older types sometimes facing total obsolescence.

I wonder if there is not a technological sea change in naval affairs that occurs long before the U.S. could re-establish any kind of significant industrial increase.

 

[TomS]

We need to understand that American shipbuilding is fundamentally uncompetitive.

Yes, to a degree. But US naval shipbuilding is even worse than US commercial shipbuilding, mainly because the US Navy appears to have absolutely no idea how to properly supervise ship construction. In specific, they simply cannot leave well enough alone. Even deep in a ship production run, every new build ship has a never-ending stream of ShipAlts, change orders, and visits from the good ideas fairy. I doubt that any two DDG-51s have come out of the yard the same in 35 years.

Now, sometimes those changes are necessary, or at least beneficial, but the impact on being able to actually build multiple ships with economies of scale is significant. Sure, follow ships are cheaper than lead ships, but not as much cheaper as they should be.

 

[Moose]

There would be no need to repeal the entire law (The Jones act). There are exceptions, however. The first step would be for non-contiguous US states and territories to be able to get waivers from the president. Why not do that is ridiculous, because it is only a small change that could make a big difference. You don't want Chinese ships to do interstate cabotage? No problem, they can be banned from the coasts for national security reasons.

There are waivers for specific circumstances already, but ultimately even a complete exception wouldn't solve the problem that islands are islands and it's more expensive to ship to a bunch of islands than to a continent. So hinging the Jones Act and national maritime strategy around reducing the cost of shipping to islands is always a dumb idea.

 

[that_person]

But US naval shipbuilding is even worse than US commercial shipbuilding

Well that’s just the thing, there is virtually no commercial shipbuilding.

Between 2015-2025, Philly Shipyard built ~12 commercial vessels before transitioning to NMSV production.
As I understand, Bollinger mainly built inland barges before transitioning to Cutter production.
Sturgeon Bay built exactly 1 ship in the past 40 years.
And NASSCO builds auxiliaries now.

There is absolutely no commercial interest in American-built ships, and unless the production cost is cut in half, that is unlikely to change. No amount of protectionist policies will revive the industry. Neither will corporate buyouts.

Frankly, I’m not convinced there is need for domestically-produced commercial ships. If our goal is to rebuild the Merchant Marine, it doesn’t matter where the ships come from, provided we can mobilize them on demand. And it’s not like they can be built quick enough in a national emergency to have an effect on the conflict. In 1978, MARAD estimated that PD-214 could be built in a maximum of 17 months.

If we want to revive the merchant marine, we must do away with the notion they have to be Made in America, there’s simply not enough money to do that cost-effectively. When we go to war with China, what will be more useful, 40 ships launched from Philly, or 200 ships launched from Hyundai?

Naval shipbuilding is different though. That’s the one thing we have to do domestically. It’s too much of a security risk not too.

 

[Lc89]

There are waivers for specific circumstances already, but ultimately even a complete exception wouldn't solve the problem that islands are islands and it's more expensive to ship to a bunch of islands than to a continent. So hinging the Jones Act and national maritime strategy around reducing the cost of shipping to islands is always a dumb idea.

A Hawaiian rum producer is challenging the law in court. https://gcaptain.com/hawaiian-rum-c...e-jones-act-citing-constitutional-violations/

 

[Desertfox]

Well that’s just the thing, there is virtually no commercial shipbuilding.

Between 2015-2025, Philly Shipyard built ~12 commercial vessels before transitioning to NMSV production.
As I understand, Bollinger mainly built inland barges before transitioning to Cutter production.
Sturgeon Bay built exactly 1 ship in the past 40 years.
And NASSCO builds auxiliaries now.

There is absolutely no commercial interest in American-built ships, and unless the production cost is cut in half, that is unlikely to change. No amount of protectionist policies will revive the industry. Neither will corporate buyouts.

Frankly, I’m not convinced there is need for domestically-produced commercial ships. If our goal is to rebuild the Merchant Marine, it doesn’t matter where the ships come from, provided we can mobilize them on demand. And it’s not like they can be built quick enough in a national emergency to have an effect on the conflict. In 1978, MARAD estimated that PD-214 could be built in a maximum of 17 months.

If we want to revive the merchant marine, we must do away with the notion they have to be Made in America, there’s simply not enough money to do that cost-effectively. When we go to war with China, what will be more useful, 40 ships launched from Philly, or 200 ships launched from Hyundai?

Naval shipbuilding is different though. That’s the one thing we have to do domestically. It’s too much of a security risk not too.

The solution should be to focus on expanding capability in a friendly, neighboring, cheaper country for commercial and low end military stuff. Mexico comes to mind. While at the same time consolidating and expanding US shipbuilding on stuff that can't be built abroad, ie carriers, submarines, and high end warships (Connies and larger).

Outsource what you can and use the savings to expand what you can't. If there is only so many expert welders you can afford, make sure they are working on a Columbia class and not on a generic merchant.

 

[H_K]

The solution should be to focus on expanding capability in a friendly, neighboring, cheaper country for commercial and low end military stuff. Mexico comes to mind. While at the same time consolidating and expanding US shipbuilding on stuff that can't be built abroad, ie carriers, submarines, and high end warships (Connies and larger).

Outsource what you can and use the savings to expand what you can't. If there is only so many expert welders you can afford, make sure they are working on a Columbia class and not on a generic merchant.

Kind of along those lines, another hybrid option is to build hull blocks in Mexico, Japan or Korea, but then outfit them in US yards.

This would be similar to European yards which outsource the most labor intensive steel bashing and sometimes complete hull blocks to Romania, Poland or the Baltics. But they keep the specialist work and most complex hull modules in house, invest in tools to reduce labor man hours etc. They also bring in cheap foreign labor on-site to fill gaps in trades or handle the less pleasant grunt work.

Do all that and US yards might become significantly more competitive.

 

[PFJN]

Kind of along those lines, another hybrid option is to build hull blocks in Mexico, Japan or Korea, but then outfit them in US yards.

This would be similar to European yards which outsource the most labor intensive steel bashing and sometimes complete hull blocks to Romania, Poland or the Baltics. But they keep the specialist work and most complex hull modules in house, invest in tools to reduce labor man hours etc. They also bring in cheap foreign labor on-site to fill gaps in trades or handle the less pleasant grunt work.

Do all that and US yards might become significantly more competitive.

Hi,
I believe that this has been done to some extent in the past. Specifically I remember back when I was working in support of the transfer of some Ammunition ships from the USN to the Military Sealift Command that the yard involved in converting at least one of the ships had some deckhouse extension blocks built in Mexico and barged up to San Diego, if I am recalling correctly.

Regards

Pat

 

[Scott Kenny]

The major place that US shipbuilding is still competitive is the Great Lakes. But most of those shipyards are pissed off at the USN's inability to stop fucking with a design and have refused to contract with the USN since like the 1970s.

I think the other thing we have to come to grips with is that the nature of naval warfare *might* be changing and that large surface ships may no longer be competitive in peer warfare. Currently the trend is for ever decreasing costs and abilities for anti ship platforms and ISR, while the complete opposite for modern DDG types. Barring a major technological change that pushes the cost effectiveness ratio in favor of the defense, we may be seeing the end of surface ships based sea control as we know it.

Now of course we have seen technological scares like this before - the torpedo boat, the submarine, the anti ship missile, etc. in the end surface navies adapted to meet the threat. But generally what came out of each technological revolution was a new type of ship to address the threat, with the older types sometimes facing total obsolescence.

I wonder if there is not a technological sea change in naval affairs that occurs long before the U.S. could re-establish any kind of significant industrial increase.

Firmly disagree here, as carriers have shown that bigger is exponentially better.

And while we may need to give carriers some more defensive measures so they can handle AShBMs, at present they still need a "goalkeeper" and "plane guard" DDG or CG. Same applies to LPHs/mini carriers.

So until you come up with a way to make carriers obsolete, we're still going to need carriers and their escorts. Plus the gator freighters need their escorts as well.

Kind of along those lines, another hybrid option is to build hull blocks in Mexico, Japan or Korea, but then outfit them in US yards.

This would be similar to European yards which outsource the most labor intensive steel bashing and sometimes complete hull blocks to Romania, Poland or the Baltics. But they keep the specialist work and most complex hull modules in house, invest in tools to reduce labor man hours etc. They also bring in cheap foreign labor on-site to fill gaps in trades or handle the less pleasant grunt work.

Do all that and US yards might become significantly more competitive.

There's US legal restrictions about certain jobs must be completed by American workers, and/or cleared American workers.

IIRC, there was some motor-generator shop that is straddling the US-Mexico border. They provide ship-service generators and 400hz motor-generators, ~70kw units. The ones destined for submarines are made on the American side of the line and never cross a red line on the floor of the ship, while all their other units are made by Mexican nationals. I believe at a different pay rate than the American workers in the same factory.

 

[joshjosh]

Am I wrong in thinking that there is no way for the US to win a naval war with China? The only competitive advantage the US has is in tech, battle management, missiles. China builds half the world's ships and has a population several times larger. I can't imagine a grand strategy that would give the US a chance to win a protracted naval war.

 

[Josh_TN]

Am I wrong in thinking that there is no way for the US to win a naval war with China? The only competitive advantage the US has is in tech, battle management, missiles. China builds half the world's ships and has a population several times larger. I can't imagine a grand strategy that would give the US a chance to win a protracted naval war.

There is no way that the U.S. can equal PRC ship production. But it is a lot easier to sink a ship with aircraft and submarines than with another ship. A 2021 CSIS wargame, probably the most extensive and recent that was run publicly, found that in their 2026 Taiwan invasion scenario the red team almost always failed within three weeks (given their very specific assumptions with a number of variations). The catch: the 7th fleet almost universally lost a pair of carriers and depending on conditions (there were two dozen games) took a vast number of other serious losses as well. Lots of dead USAF aircraft as welll depending on variables and blue team actions (attacking the mainland with tactical fighters was found to be ineffective and expensive). They found that given their assumptions, the most effective anti ship platforms were the strategic bombers - they could routinely deliver high volumes of long range missile fire. However the problem was that in pretty much every scenario the blue team expended every stand off weapon of most every type (AGM-158, available tomahawk, JSOW, SLAM, etc) in roughly three weeks. That was usually enough to destroy the amphibious fleet (and most of PLAN east of Taiwan defending it), but obviously left the U.S. in an incredibly tenuous situation even had the war ended at that point.

The U.S. can win a campaign of sea denial, but ships are required to exert sea control.

Interesting read if you have the time:

The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan

CSIS wargamed a Chinese invasion of Taiwan 24 times and found that Taiwan would endure as a democratic and independent entity in most scenarios. However, the costs were enormous. Victory is not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence to avoid war.

www.csis.org