I remember the CEO of a shipyard saying they were going out of commercial shipping and concentrating on government contracts. He said the difference between building a commercial ship and a warship was like the difference between turning out an eighteen wheeler and a Ferrari.
Not really. And the “war” need is somewhat multifaceted. Yes, even in modern warfare there is a need for ground equipment and helicopters. We already have pre-positioned ships with this cargo. We also have far more well stocked bases overseas than we did at the outset of WW2.
I think the more important WW3 issue is continuity of trade. If we are at war with our trading partners or those who operate the ships that bring in 90% of our imports, then we need the ability to make that up. We don’t have it now, and I don’t see how we could build it fast enough. I also don’t see where we’d be at war with enough countries that we couldn’t more easily procure the needed tonnage from overseas. Likewise with O&G imports. If we had more/cheaper/any O&G vessels we could, in time of need, re-route the current exports to those importing ports along the coast that could be potentially cut off from adversary countries such as Russia.
I defiantly agree that the world has changed and that war shipping needs of tomorrow should not be equated to the needs of WW2.
Here is your biggest trading partners at the moment:
These are America’s top trading partners - CNNMoney.
Hopefully Trump doesn’t get you into a war with Canada or Mexico, More likely he will try to expand the present “Trade War” into a “Cold War” with China, but hopefully not have the time to provoc a real “Hot War”. (I.A)
That’s actually false. MARAD did release the “long awaited” national maritime strategy on Maritime Day.
Goals and Objectives for a Stronger Maritime Nation - A Report to Congress February 2020.pdf (322.8 KB)
That said, there are some holes in it Big enough to drive a vlcc through. 
1 Like