A 60 Minutes report, specifically titled “Turning the Ship Around” this coming Sunday investigates the decline of U.S. shipbuilding, noting that the nation produces only about three large cargo ships annually. The segment explores how decades of neglect and short-sighted policies have hampered naval readiness, amidst a growing shipbuilding surge in China.
Key Focus: The episode examines efforts to revive American commercial and naval shipbuilding, focusing on the stark contrast between U.S. output and foreign competitors.
The man being interviewed in the clip nailed it square on the head when he says that the US should be the ones exporting crude oil and gas produced in this nation! A simple act of Congress setting aside 50% of those exports for US flagged carriers would invigorate our industry immensely even if those ships were reflagged foreign built ones. Not sure where US built ships fit into that set aside unless finacial advantages were put into place for owners who had their ships built here? That really means offering CDS subsidies imo.
Really very much looking forward to what is reported in this piece tomorrow.
Could it be wise to learn from other high cost countries that used to have a large shipbuilding capacity, but are no longer competitive in the “lower segment” of the business? (I.e. mass producing standardized ships)
Aside from Japan, most have gone to build only high-tech vessels for specialized markets, like Offshore Oil & Gas, Offshore Wind, Fisheries and Cruise.
To be competitive hull sections or entire hulls are produced in low cost countries and transported to the outfitting yard on HLVs. (Or towed)
Ship design and equipment are sourced locally, or from companies with special expertise and technology in other countries, where best quality and price is obtained.
Collapse of U.S. shipbuilding poses national and economic security risks | 60 Minutes
Mar 22, 2026
China rolls out over 1,000 cargo ships a year, while the U.S. – maybe three. The Trump administration has called this a crisis with both economic and national security risks.
Too simple for the level of grift and corruption that has existed in Congress for generations.
The timber industry in the US could have been saved massive destruction and contributed much to the economy back in the 1970s by simply restricting all lumber exports from public lands to that processed to final dimensions by American mills. The lobbyists managed to dilute that to nothing more than squaring off the raw logs. The result was the American taxpayer funded the raping of SE Alaska forests carried to Japan on foreign ships.
@ombugge : “Colin Grabow explains the problem with the Jones Act very clearly”
Yes, he (and you in your previous posts) explain the ECONOMIC problems regarding the Jones Act very clearly and repetitively.
As has been stated many times on this forum, the purpose of the Jones Act IS NOT economic. It’s like trying to explain the economic justification for an aircraft carrier.
At the end of the piece, the interviewer asks the American Hanwa rep “wouldn’t it be more profitable and wiser to just buy the ships from Korea?”. Answer from the American Hanwa rep: “That doesn’t solve the problem”. THERE is your clear summary statement.
What is its purpose? Is it achieving that purpose (and if so, by what metrics)? And could that purpose be more effectively and efficiently achieved by other approaches?
For the US built provision, the purpose is to ensure the existence of US shipyards capable of producing militarily useful vessels. It is achieving that purpose. The metric is that such shipyards in the US currently exist where they wouldn’t in the absence of that provision.
Are there other approaches that could more effectively accomplish this goal? I’m very open to hearing all proposed solutions that don’t kill US shipbuilding capability.
How many “military useful vessels” are built by US shipyards per year?
How many of the existing “military useful vessels” under US flag today are built at US shipyards?
What is wrong with building vessels to US “military useful” specifications at shipyards in allied nations, (when you still have any) then flag them and crew them US?
Today’s reality is;
Most Jones Act compliant vessels are not “military useful”.
Most of the “military useful vessels” built at (mostly foreign owned) US shipyards in the last two decades, today and in the foreseeable future, are foreign designed, with foreign branded and built machinery and major equipment, at 4-5x the cost of building the same vessels abroad.
If the purpose is to have a fleet of US owned, operated and manned vessels to be a “ready reserve”, there is already a large pool of ships that meet the first criteria (US owned):
Many US owned ships are managed by Shipmanagement companies outside USA, by a sizeable fleet are also managed from USA. (2nd criteria)
That leaves the question of crewing:
Are there enough US citizens and PRs able and willing to crew a large fleet of ships in international trade?
Other developed countries find it hard to recruit young people interested in pursuing a lifelong seagoing career.
Would a ship with all US crew be competitive in international trade, or would subsidise be required?
Would a solution with US Officers and foreign crews (like is common on European ships), be acceptable for a vessel to be “military useful”?
How much extra coast will US taxpayers be willing to accept to keep a few thousand US citizen at work building, manning and managing US-flag ships in international trade, when foreign ships can do it cheaper?
