https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-create-office-shipbuilding-offer-tax-incentives-2025-03-05/
Anyone have some thoughts on this? I wonder if this going to be something in addition to the SHIPS For America Act or if it’s in anticipation of that getting passed. Seems like a separate thing based on the way Trump announced it.
If they get more than 5 ships built during Trumps 4 years (meaning ordered and built through this new “office”) I’ll be in awe of the success.
I’m curious to see if this will dull the political right’s appetite for destruction of the Jones Act.
Well we can’t magically get major shipyards like Avondale to appear, there isn’t the skill set available.
You don’t think there’s people capable of building the ships? We still build ships here just not a lot.
Yes we do, smaller vessels. But tiocreate the large vessels we need to compete globally and that is harder. Yes it can be done but will take a major start up.
We built the LMSR’s less than 30 years ago. We’ve lost that tech? We’ve lost the ability to just scale up drawings?
Yeah, because a 650’ up-scaled OSV sounds like a fan-freaking-tastic idea. Or maybe you haven’t been on a lot of the smaller vessels that have come out of American yards over the past 30 years.
Hell, one of the bigger OSV companies in the gulf that builds their own boats, just a few years ago started building some quality hulls that are based off a European design that was already somewhat dated in North Sea service. There’s ZERO innovation in American shipbuilding.
We can’t even supply decent icebreakers to the USCG, right now they are reduced to using a vessel best with problems for years.
Even US Navy and USCG use foreign design and a lot of foreign machinery and equipment on their newbuilt vessels.
If in doubt, check the new T-ATS being built for US Navy to a VS 4612 design from the 1990s:
Relax, I was talking about ships. By international standards, JA compliant RORO’s/Container ships, and tankers are fairly small. However the fact we’ve built 1,000 ft (or close to it) ships shows that we can obviously do it and the assertion that the knowledge isn’t available just isn’t true.
Post wasn’t about innovation, it was about whether or not we could do it. To be fair, if you have to build JA compliant hulls it’s going to cost you so much that you’re not going to be building the most state of the art, cutting edge, ships. You’re taking what you can afford to build at a (by US standards) reasonable price
Sooo, like the yard that screwed up building a MARAD contracted training ship so badly that Schuyler flat out refused delivery, or maybe the ones that built the LCSs? You might better off with upscaled OSVs from the bayou yards after all if that’s the case.
Sure, you win. One ship in the yard on a new design. Did Matson refuse delivery of their container ships built there? Did Mass have a problem with their ship this cruise?
The LCS is a dog shit platform that was a failure from the design phase. Idk how you can get mad at a shipyard for building what you ask them to? That’s like being upset about the JHSV’s but they keep building them the same way.
What the point you’re trying to prove? You really don’t think the US yards are capable of building a ship because we don’t have the tech or knowledge to pull it off?
No, I really don’t. And if they were capable, their output wouldn’t matter to a degree that will make one GD bit of difference to Jones Act shipping. We’re not capable of producing massive tonnage like Bath, Philly, and Mare Island did during WW2. Between the sheer incompetence I noted (or as you pointed out, in both design AND fabrication), what are the delays and cost overruns on those Matson ships and MPSVs? Heck, the new CVNs? The SSNs?
How much of a subsidy will it take to make building in a US yard cost effective over finding loopholes or lobbying for exemptions, or hell, maybe an executive order or two to just kill it flat out (congress doesn’t care and they’re all kissing the ring anyway).
I think this is 100% fault of government bureaucracy, not the shipyards. If it was private industry that needed icebreakers asap, with the funding to do it, I think there’s a few shipyards that could have the first one built in 2-3 years (purchasing a completed design from Northern Europe) & one of the same class every a year or two later. If a buch of elderly people, cripples & women could do this 80 years ago with no automation we could probably turn out ships in 1-1.5 years a pop if we wanted. I just don’t think we want to do it?
“SS Robert E. Peary was a Liberty Ship which gained fame during World War II for being built in a shorter time than any other such vessel. Named after Robert Peary, an American explorer who was among the first people to reach the geographic North Pole, she was launched on November 12, 1942, just 4 days, 15 hours and 26 minutes after the keel was laid down.”
Yes there is plenty of blame to go around. Icebreakers have been built for over 600 years, so we know how to build them. We just need to streamline the procedure.
When it comes to icebreakers, the blame isn’t spread around. There’s shipyards somewhere that wants the work. There’s architects firms that want to sell their plans or make new ones. While there not a big shipyard workforce available, there’s firms & unions willing to create them once the work is there. The holdup for icebreakers is 100% on the client side imo.
The order includes 18 measures, including raising revenue from fees on Chinese-built ships and cranes entering the U.S., the newspaper reported.
With doing no further reading or research on the Office, I am concerned this will bite us in the ass if any of the TSP ships were built in China. I had heard APL just built some American flagged, non-jones act ships in China recently.
Surely we wouldn’t shoot ourselves in the foot like this, right? … right?
These?:
Based on what though? One ship that had issues? I haven’t heard much about the new Matson ships, I sail in a different union. However, Mass’ training ship doesn’t seem to have any issues having done their whole cruise fairly smoothly.
I don’t think anyone is arguing this. You can’t produce a lot of tonnage without a lot of shipyards and we just don’t have a lot of shipyards. However, if that’s the goal, and based on the presidents comments that is the goal, you have to start somewhere.
You can’t really lump government builds in with commercials. American shipyards milk those contracts for everything they can, and if you’ve ever worked a government contract, hell if you’ve paid attention to news the last 3 months, you know how much bullshit goes into a government bid/build/contract.
I’m no economist but I’d say a lot because we build like commercial 1 commercial ship a year.
Hey look at that, @Sand_Pebble and I can agree on something!!
Also: https://x.com/johnkonrad/status/1898463965652439518
John isn’t the best source, however knowing how badly he wanted to be a part of this office, I’d say he got this one right. Color me shocked that the Office of Shipbuilding didn’t survive past an idea /s
How is the US going to pay for this new office of ship building much less subsidize the building when they reduce the staff of the IRS by 50% which collects the money to pay for the government?