Gentlemen:
How do we fix the American shipbuilding industry?
>>28029694
Is there a problem that needs fixing?
>>28029694
go to waR
behemoth golem move
stomp stomp
drink the oceans
eat the sun
swallow all the winds
everything dies
>>28029703
While American aviation is top notch, American shipbuilding is a shadow of its former self. Nobody buys ships from America anymore.
>>28029694
Free market instead of pay-to-play extortion.
>>28029752
Also kill the unions.
>>28029765
>high school student detected
>>28029765
All of big aviation is unionized and doesn't have this problem
>>28029780
Plus Korean and Japanese shipbuilding are unionized.
>>28029694
Fucking innovate for a change. Lets get 3d printing into the game in a big way. Do major chunks of hull this way on the fly, allow for rapid modifications from lessons learned. want to get crazier?
Lets start building with good strong composites.
really, really cray cray?
Each ship is now modular to the point where you can lift the power pack out at dry dock, meaning nuclear reactors are plug and play. Propulsion is modular, major chunks of the ship are modular.
sooo...
Nuclear, Modular, Composite ships.
>>28029733
We're still selling Perrys. And lots of nations equip their ships with American munitions, VLS, and radars.
>>28029777
not that guy, but unions are a blood sucking racket
>>28029694
Ship it to China.
>>28029833
modular is a meme
cost tons of money, compromises performance etc
What I would really like to know, is what makes modern boats so fucking expensive now?
20 years ago they cost a fraction of what they do today
>>28029833
Building ships like that leads to serious problems. Liberty ships used to snap in rough seas.
>>28029833
>Lets get 3d printing into the game in a big way.
So spending tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars to research 3d metal printing and then build these industrial sized printers for shipbuilding.
>Lets start building with good strong composites.
Composite materials are much more expensive then steel.
>Each ship is now modular
Anon, most commercial ships constructed today are semi-modular only when necessary to spend up production, you don't want complete modularity because it compromises performance, costs even more money, when a ship is only going to do one job in its entire lifetime.
>Nuclear powered ships
Why?
Learn from the Chinese.
24/7 work
modulized construction
unified state-controled supplier chain
high grade of automatization
And you will spit out warships like dumplings.
The solution....
Buy more ships and hold manufacturers feet to the fire regarding deadlines and costs.
Right now there is no incentive as a manufacturer to build on time and on budget.
>>28030221
>is what makes modern boats so fucking expensive now?
They are much larger, which means in order to construct them you need even larger dry docks, which all adds to the expenses.
Not to mention stricter engineering protocols such as double hull designs on supertankers.
>>28030274
Isn't it usually not the manufacturers fault when stuff goes over cost?
>>28029733
Why do you hate capitalism? It's what you wanted.
Civilian ships keep shipyards alive. Koreans and Chinese manufacture bulk carriers at 50% of American cost. European yards build so elaborate cruise liners that american yards cannot even bid such contracts.
Stop crying over spilled milk
>>28030298
Is it the unions at fault? I know the unions fucked car manufacturers, did the unions fuck ship manufacturing too?
>>28030287
No. It is the manufactures and designers faults.
Design/build is fucking stupid. Make the design. Build a test ship. Test . then go hog wild building the ships of the class.
>>28030287
Not when the plans and requirements are changed 10 times mid-project just like during the F-35 and Bradley.
Here is a Hollywood illustration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
>>28030310
No, because american industry skipped the initial international market in the 50's and 60's and let international competitors take the market while concentrating ONLY on US-contracts. When US internal contracts dried up, they were fucked and had no response to the competition. Pure lack of vision and just greed for easy bucks.
>>28030310
technological degration t'bh
If you cut back on spending and orders, experienced workers and engineers retire and ship-building practice gets obsolete.
>>28030340
>can build the worlds most technologically advanced and largest military surface combatant ships and submarines
>cannot into civilian shipbuilding
>>28030340
Yet there is no country in the world with the current shipbuilding capabilities of the US. Russia had to contract with France just to figure out how to build a small Helicopter carrier. China has yet to successfully build anything half the size of a supercarrier or half as quiet as a US SSN.
Only 3 kinds of ships are made. Military ships, cargo ships, and cruise ships. Everything else is to small of a market to matter.
Military ships, well, we have the largest navy in the world, we use our own ships. Our navy is the 2nd largest airforce in the fucking world, I'd say the industry is booming.
Cruise ships, not really a need for these shits. The cruise industry is a shell of it's former self and is still struggling from all the cruise ship disasters and the recession.
Cargo Ships? Can't really compete with China or Japan.
I wouldn't say the US ship industry is dead, just specialized.
>>28029694
There is nothing wrong with US shipbuilding because it does not pander to civilian markets.
US has the largest blue water navy in the world.
>>28029694
So after the Zumwalt fiasco what is the future of US surface fleet? Are they stuck with Burkes until the next century?
>>28030352
It's obvious you dont know anything about engineering.
Warships are just cheap buckets with high tech electronics. There is nothing high tech about the ships themselves.
Cruise ships on the other hand are a bitch to design in terms of materials, longevity, safety, amenities, presentation, comfort and seaworthiness. Besides they dwarf carriers.
>>28030399
Nope.
Zumwalts=seawolves.
The tech will be taken and put into a new design, cheaper.
>>28030399
See USS Seawolf class, and the subsequent Virginia class.
The Zumwalt came at an awkward time. The USN didn't even fight very hard for the class, because they saw the cornucopia of new tech about to drop out of the pipeline and wisely chose to rely on Flight III Burkes until the new tech already in the Zumwalt is fully worked up, and the new tech dropping as we speak has a shape in terms of ship design requirements. There will be a new mass produced USN destroyer on the boards within the decade, and it will include directed energy and railgun tech. It'll be in service in 20-22 years.
>>28030406
>Warships are just cheap buckets with high tech electronics. There is nothing high tech about the ships themselves.
Yes, thats why a perry took a mine meant for cruisers, broke its keel, yet still retained battle footing (systems operational) and sailed itself out of the mine field.
Because it was a cheap bucket.
Kill yourself.
Second shift, Bruddah.
>>28030406
>Besides they dwarf carriers.
What? What the fuck are you smoking? The ship you posted is literally the largest passenger vessel ever constructed and it's still 10ktons less displacement than a fully loaded Ford.
>Warships are just cheap buckets with high tech electronics.
DC systems alone put the absolute lie to your statement, and that's before we get into integrated FC, sensoria and weapons systems installation.
You literally have no clue what you're talking about.
>>28030254
sooo...do nothing to innovate at all, and let your adversary surpass you. Hey. Fuck it, you are right. Lets scrap the navy and invest it's budget into social programs.
>>28029833
Jesus fuck, I'm so sick of people who don't understand materials sciences and metallurgy regurgitate "muh 3d printing" for every question of manufacturing productivity or innovation. While impressive in its potential, the application and practicality is extremely limited and comes with extremely high set up costs and agonizingly slow production compared to conventional manufacturing methods, discouraging its use for anything than proof of concepts and prototyping. Materials used in all but the most high dollar set ups are of far lesser strength and structural integrity than cast, molded, or machined parts. Not to mention with current printing heads and sintering or edm methods used to print steel limiting parts size to small-ish components, its fucking retarded for you to mention it in regards to ship building. Modular is already happening on the LCS platform, to varying degrees of success. Composites could be doable, but layup times and costs would have to come down to price parity with steel for it to be viable outside of proof of concept, as well as a work force skilled in composite construction to actually build them regularly. Welders are everywhere, composites professionals not so much. Nuclear is a pipe dream for all but the largest ships, and again requires highly skilled people to construct, crew, and maintain. These folks aren't easy to find and train, and thats not something you can shortcut. In short, the current construction methods, being the culmination of over 150 years of steel warship building experience, work well for their intended purpose and necessary price point; and will continue to do so for quite a long time. Real innovation will happen in naval aviation and integrated fleet combat systems first.
>>28030463
>resort to ad hominems when out of arguments
:^)
Do we fix it by not being the greatest navy on the planet?
>>28030493
>Nuclear is a pipe dream for all but the largest ships
?
All the subs being built are nuclear
It wouldn't be outrageous to add nukes to surface destroyers/cruisers. At least the newly built ones.
>>28030521
>ad hominem means a directly contradictory example
>completely ignores this post, which destroys his argument >>28030479
200% potato.
>>28030548
Would require completely new design reactors, ships 1.6 times the displacement, double the initial build cost and nearly double the manning and maintenance costs. Seriously. There's a reason neither Russia nor the US build nuclear powered cruisers anymore.
>>28030479
>What is center of mass
>you posted is literally the largest passenger vessel ever constructed
Because those are the ones currently being built and operated.
Besides all the points you raised are irrelevant compared to the technological and material task of contructing a vessel required to carry and maintain 24/7 thousands of passangers in full opulence in any and all sea and weather conditions with the all the amenities required. Imagine the technological terror of a 5 star Las Vegas Casino 10 times the size in the middle of the fucking ocean. That level of perfection in the customer experience requires a level of engineering unsurpassed in any other field of machining. My dad is a marine architect and I'm an engineer too.
>>28030552
Except you are wrong. Again.
>>28030587
>>28030406
What about oil tankers and cargo ships?
>>28030587
>Because those are the ones currently being built and operated.
You said it dwarfed a carrier. It's 10% smaller. How stupid are you?
>Besides all the points you raised are irrelevant compared to the technological and material task of contructing a vessel required to carry and maintain 24/7 thousands of passangers in full opulence in any and all sea and weather conditions with the all the amenities required.
So carrying the most modern weapons systems and aircraft in the world 24/7, with all the gear needed to service, fight and feed them ammunition, plus routinely traveling over twice as fast with longer endurance, more time between maintenance, being deployed for months at a time, and designed to take catastrophic damage and keep fighting doesn't count?
Congratulations. You're the dumbest nigger on 4Chan today.
>>28030587
>Because those are the ones currently being built and operated.
There are only two in the whole world. Out of several dozen large cruise ships.
>>28030491
All I'm saying is your ideas of innovation are absolute trash and will only succeed in burning money, not that we shouldn't innovate at all.
>>28029694
>>28029733
>Nobody buys ships from America anymore.
Ship building steel is not some kind of magical secret anymore.
It is not that hard to make your own ships. Countries would rather make warships in their ports because of worries about sabotage by America. And they would rather use their own companies and own people to make them, even if it would cost more.
Once again. Ship building is no longer some kind of magical secret. Even 3rd world countries can easily do it now and make aircraft carriers. Ship is just a floating hulk of steel with engines and propulsion attached at the end.
>>28030669
>You said it dwarfed a carrier. It's 10% smaller. How stupid are you?
It does, subhuman. See, I can do ad hominems too.
>Long text
What you described are irrelevant and trivial in terms effort for ship design. Read the previous post again.
If you still dont believe me then think for a second from another perspective. Why are there hundreds of shipyards around the world with the capacity to construct and design anything from standard MEKO-frigates to CVs at any time? And then there is a reason why there are less than 10 yards in the world with the capability to design the most modern cruise ships. The answer? Warships themselves are less complex, even the largest ones, in comparison.
It's obvious you have no comprehension of marine architecture and the engineering tasks at hand.
>Congratulations. You're the dumbest nigger on 4Chan today.
The cries of the defeated are delicious.
>>28030773
>Why are there hundreds of shipyards around the world with the capacity to construct and design anything from standard MEKO-frigates to CVs at any time?
Because they aren't. Otherwise the Soviets would have built a supercarrier. Otherwise the Chinese would already have supercarriers.
You're either trolling or supremely fucking stupid.
>>28030254
Nuclear powered ships would be an environmental incentive.
>>28030860
The costs far, far outweigh the short term emissions benefits. Long term, it's an even worse environmental problem.
>>28030860
And logistical, and tactical...
>>28030867
>Long term is worse environmentally
...
I don't even know if I'm being rused anymore.
>>28030867
>Long term, it's an even worse environmental problem.
LOLWUT
Nuclear energy is a helluva lot cleaner than the majority of forms of propulsion that exist for such a platform
>>28030884
I'm speaking strictly of commercial ships.
>>28030867
Only because of 1 law that prevents reprocessing the used fuel into useful and less-hazardous materials
>>28030884
Again, for double the costs across the board it is not worth it. Supercarriers and subs are nuclear because they have to be by engineering and performance necessity.
>>28030893
>>28030899
>long term
Jesus you autists are dense. What do you do with the spent fuel and decommissioned reactors? It's already a disposal crisis in the US just with what we have.
>>28030908
>thinking this will magically change because reasons
>thinking the spent fuel is the only hazardous waste
>>28030907
Why in holy fuck would commercial shipbuilding, an industry which revolves around the lowest costs per travel mile, want to more than double their operating costs for literally no advantage? The ships already have more than enough fuel to get from port to port, and sea transpo is already the most efficient means of transportation in mile/fuel costs on the planet.
This is just stupid.
>>28030917
We have a disposal "crisis" because Congress banned reclaiming/recycling nuclear material.
>>28030958
see >>28030935
Once again, spent fuel is not the only hazardous waste.
There's a reason Congress did this. Literally NO ONE in the US wants any of that shit in their state. NO ONE. No matter how safe.
>>28030958
>Bingo
If congress hadn't been a bunch of whiny pussies we'd be running breeder reactors right now. Wouldn't even need to dig up new fuel.
>>28030406
>Implying ships are low-tech to begin with
>Especially fucking huge warships
Because a floating metal frame is build to last, doesn't mean it is low-tech.
>>28030952
because speed of ship matters, and nuclear ships could travel twice as fast
>>28031018
Commercial ships are built to be economical as humanly possible, not for speed or performance but cost per mile.
Nuclear ships is only desired in military applications and only out of engineering and design necessity.
Why helicopters on the arleigh burkes instead of CATOBAR UAV's?
>>28030972
Too fucking bad? This NIMBY bullshit is killing any shot at cleaner energy production the world might have.
>>28031119
>>28030972
It's not even NIMBY-ism
It's the government allowing these lawsuits to be filed because the elites decided 40 years ago to kill nuclear power development in the USA
Thats what the NRC is about.
>>28030310
Not even the US car makers were destroyed by unions. US car makers refused to innovate, and pretended like they were in the post war bubble for decades after their competitive advantage from being the only major industry left not flattened by bombs. They were late on new market trends like a trend towards cars that were not the size of a continent, and late on cars that ran with more than single digit MPG's. They came out with a host of anemic engines with high displacement but somehow ridiculously low HP and had very poor gas mileage to boot that were engineered by slapping emissions shit on endlessly rehashed ancient technology. They came out with a huge stream of ridiculously unreliable shitty turds for about two decades in a row during the time Toyota and Honda were making a long line of bulletproof cars. Or what, did you think labor was cheaper in Europe or Japan?
>>28031146
Basically, no matter how shit your union is, they can only control a small percentage of the cost of a car, and none of the design aspects that make a car good or not. The percentage of the cost of a car that is labor is usually around 10%.
>>28029833
BIW and every other shipbuilder already weld in modules. Here's one of the Ultras for DDG1000:
>>28031100
They have CATOBAR UAV's
>>28031193
Unions can control way more than just labor costs
>>28030221
Nimtz pretty much the same cost as ford
>>28031018
I dont think the government trusts anyone but themselves to monitor hundreds of floating nuclear reactors and stockpiles of fissile matierial.
>nuclear cargo ship's start being taken by pirates and state sponsored terrorists just to steal the nuclear fuel rods
>"oh gee, how did all these 3rd world dictatorships and terror networks suddenly all end up with piles of plutonium and uranium?"
Guess we need to start outfitting each cargo ship with special security teams, because literally every security risk now could potentially be an ecological or political nightmare.
And who is going to operate this reactor?
Youd have to have dedicated highly trained and certified nuclear technicians on each ship, who dont work cheap by the way. And they must be present from the moment the reactor goes hot to the moment its decomissioned. Which itself costs hundreds of millions.
Yup. Totally cheaper per mile than conventional diesel engines.
>>28031386
>reactor material
>weapons-grade
Pick one.
>>28031411
>non weapons-grade
>Dirty bomb.
Pick both.
>>28031411
Oh, golly gee, its not weapons grade?
I guess that means its harmless and we dont mind if anyone has it then.
Nope. There would be NO REASON that we would want to secure a nuclear reactor, how silly, somebody call every nuclear powerplant in america and let them know they can fire the security teams that are more well equipped than a company of marines, turns out ITS NOT WEAPONS GRADE MATIERIAL in those reactors!
>>28031386
Noone has stolen any fuel rods from nuclear power plants, it's not like it's easy to do anything with them, nor is it easy to remove them from a reactor. You could build these commercial ship reactors with non-removable fuel rods, isn't that how modern naval reactors are?
You don't need any security teams, you just allow the crew to carry firearms, to defend themselves if need be.
The US military could lease personnel & the reactors to these commercial shippers.
Enabling a bulk carrier or oil carrier to travel 35 knots rather than 15 would more than cover any increase in cost.
Diesel isn't free either.
>>28030764
>vikrant
POO
IN
LOO
>>28031539
>ITS NOT WEAPONS GRADE MATIERIAL
It's not, what the fuck are you on about.
>>28029694
We need to go to war with a muslim country. Innovation and advanced technology should be the priority.
>>28029694
There's nothing wrong. Electric boat churns out subs early and under budget like it's nobody's business. The LCS design is shit, but marinette and austal shit those out pretty fast too. And bath and Ingalls build carriers and destroyers which are harder to shit out than fast attack boats. Are you comparing us to the chinks? They have a nationalized industry, and their ships are nowhere near as capable or well built as ours. Not a blue-water power hombre
>>28031539
?
They would need to take the rods somewhere to process the plutonium out of them
It's not "easy" to make bombs from them.
Some nig from somalia or indonesia isn't going to do that.
There are large stockpiles of essentially undefended fuel rods sitting at every nuclear power plant in the USA, they have never even been attempted to be robbed.
Far easier to make nuclear bombs from uranium ore than to take fuel rods to try to fuck with em
>>28031585
>undefended
Would ya mind telling this the small army every nuclear plant has?
>>28031639
Oh hey look, some more undefended fuel rods.
Yup. Nobody cares about non weapons grade fissile matierial.
Except this guy, and 200 of his friends that are held to higher standards than SWAT and payed twice as much.
>>28031146
well you sort of got it right.
>>28031585
>plutonium in fuel rods
Nnnnno. Fuel-grade material is low-level enriched uranium (3-4% U-235). Weapons-grade uranium is more like 90%, and that's what a terrorist organization would want, as designing a gun-bomb is exceptionally simple. Plutonium is only used for "fuel" in the form of thermoelectric generators, and using it in a weapon requires a complex implosion design that kebab are unlikely to be able to assemble.
>>28030268
>And you will spit out warships like dumplings.
With about the same durability and lifespan
>>28031661
What do you think a terrorist can do with reactor grade uranium fuel rods?
Dirty bomb? Give a handful of people cancer 20 years later?
The issues of piracy would be negated by arming the crew of commercial ships.
>>28031736
Well the plutonium is the main risk they talk about in proliferation. Because it builds up in these fuel rods and you can build a bomb from it.
Nothing you can do with that 5% U-235 without significant reprocessing.
By magically making Air transport and fighting suddenly not, cheaper, faster, and better
>>28030521
He pretty much refuted your argument. And there was no ad hom.
>>28031018
>and nuclear ships could travel twice as fast
No they don't. Nuclear power plants have similar specific power per weight and volume compare to diesels (fuel included). Nuclear comes ahead (but not much) at requirements something like 30+ knots for 10+ days. This has very little economic niche if any.
>>28029780
I could be wrong but I have friends working for Boeing in South Carolina and Washington and the unions absolutely cause problems. Isn't the reason the development of the latest stealth bomber was halted because of unions from Boeing and Lockheed Martin?
http://fortune.com/2015/11/06/boeing-lockheed-protest-long-range-bomber/http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/boeings_labour_problems
>>28031836
Protesting these kind of contests is standard now, the union has nothing to do with it. Any company that loses is going to start shit about it. It's an unfortunate development, but it's true.
That said, it's not all that big a deal honestly. "Work" will stop for like 6 months, but they're still going to be doing design development anyway, which is all they would have been doing for those 6 months regardless.
>>28031836
Northrop Grumman got the LRSB project, but the procurement department backed down and decided to "reevaluate" it after Boeing and Lockheed started bitching and whining.
>>28031193
Unions don't cost anything, out of necessity they protect workers. And yes, this is /k/ because some of the first unions were in weapons cities like Solingen and shipbuilding towns building various king's war ships.
>>28031736
>Fuel-grade material is low-level enriched uranium (3-4% U-235).
It is for low specific power energy power plants. High performance ships reactors run on 90% U-235.
>>28031871
>Unions don't cost anything
When they double labor costs when compared to competitors
I think that costs quite a bit
When they go on month long strikes every few years, that shit costs tons
When they refuse to let the host company automate, that eventually kills the entire industry.
>>28030310
The only unions that I have experience with and think need to dissolve are teacher and construction unions. Maybe law enforcement too. Though many states have already dissolved their teachers unions. It's known that when walmart employees at a particular store come close to organizing a union, corporate shuts down the store, demolishes the building, then builds a newer and bigger one close by with new employees.
>>28029833
>meaning nuclear reactors are plug and play
That's actually terrifying
>>28031386
The 4S model Toshiba was shopping around could be easily contained in a breach-proof container on a ship. Refuels every 30 years, 30-150 MW power.
>>28031867
Maybe because it is the law?
>>28031975
>the 4S model Toshiba
>fast neutron reactor
>sodium cooled
>literally the bomb
Japanese should not be allowed to have nuclear energy. (Hopefully this project was pre-Fukushima)
>This power plant is designed to provide 10 MW of electrical power
Average container ship has 30 MW power plant.
>>28031871
They do cost some. Also, once you get into the nutty gritty, it is so industry and union dependent, it is difficult to have a discussion. Saying all unions are this or all unions are that is difficult aside from a few basic things, because they vary so wildly.
>>28031907
Double labor costs is still doubling a small number. Strikes only happen if both sides are bull headed. Strikes are the nuclear option for a union and hurt everyone and are thus don't happen often. And history has shown us that unions are pretty powerless to prevent automation.
>>28029694
>how US can compete this?
>>28032166
If unions are so powerless, then why have they been responsible for so many businesses fleeing the country?
>>28030587
>My dad works at Nintendo and I do too.
FTFY
>>28032180
Crude steel != ship steel
Warships are such a small part of steel usage it doesn't really matter anyways.
>>28030773
Different anon here. You're a fucking idiot. Passenger ships are specialized cargo haulers. That's it. They carry paying customers from point to point, on a regularly scheduled route.
Passenger ships have superior fit and finish, which you seem to think is some kind of technological marvel. All of those amenities you think are so voodoo wondrous are nothing more than hotel services. Every warship afloat provides the exact same thing- berthing, messing, sanitation, and medical services.
Any ship that can pitch or catch UNREP is more technologically advanced than the latest and greatest Mickey Mouse passenger liner.
>>28030773
>Why are there hundreds of shipyards around the world with the capacity to construct and design anything from standard MEKO-frigates to CVs
Lets cut right through your bullshit. You're equating frigate construction with carrier construction, which indicates that you either have no idea what you're talking about or you're trying to salvage a weak argument.
List the countries that currently have the capability to build a supercarrier, and the number of capable yards per country.
Your argument that only 10 yards worldwide can design/build passenger ships is flawed. It's not a matter of capability, it's a matter of willingness. Passenger liners are a luxury market item. You need deep pockets and cachet to compete in that market.
>>28030221
Current sub class is modular. So meme your ass out of this bread.
>>28030287
Government imposes many changes to plans and construction of many things. I work with power propulsion of a certain ship that carries aircraft. Our contract changes 4 times from the government consignment alone. Plus twice that our customer mandated after catching something the government put into their contract. It trickles downhill. Lets say Bechtel or Newport news get a change. Then they put it on the hundreds of not thousands of companies that subcontract for them. Everyone along the supply chain is affected. Some more so than others obviously, it's not light switch covers that get changed in plans. Its major components.
>>28030268
>modulized
>automatization
wut.
>>28030358
actually this is /k/ so only military/combat ships matter
>>28029833
When it comes to ships, KISS is the best way to go. Modular composite ships will be destroyed in rough seas, and something will inevitably go horribly wrong with plug and play reactors.
>>28029733
Wrong. Compare the F-35 to the Virginia program. One is way over budget and behind schedule. The other is the exact opposite. I'll let you guess which one is which.
>>28030764
>sabotage by America
Woah, where did this shit come from?
>India
Nevermind.
>>28032180
they don't because it's ridiculous and hurts the economy in the long run
what you're seeing there is China artificially boosting their numbers by manipulating the heavy industry sector, at the cost of theri economy later
the bubble will burst
>>28035541
Except the F-35 is not over budget or behind schedule
>>28029733
That's funny, I've worked 60 hours a week as a shipfitter for the past eight years. We're constantly busy.
>>28032166
>Strikes are the nuclear option for a union and hurt everyone and are thus don't happen often.
LOL. First off Unions will demand that their workers receive back pay. Secondly strikes do happen, read the news once in a while.
>And history has shown us that unions are pretty powerless to prevent automation.
As someone who is a member of the USPS I can tell you that is complete bullshit.
>>28029797
Japan and Korea's industries are internally unionized which is completely different from western unionization. They are also partially state owned too, making them even more different from the private ship contractors in the US. It's comparing apples to oranges.
>>28036685
Marine draftsman here, I've got almost unlimited OT now. Do people think the Navy just fucks around?
Stop building these fucking embarrasments
>>28036789
>I've got almost unlimited OT now
How do I attain your level
>>28032180
Thats a lot of pot metal.
>>28036804
>I don't know what it is so its bad
>>28036820
>work weekends innashipyard
>attain +$$$
>buy house & support family
>hoard guns & ammo
>remove Xenu/kebab/slavaboo/communist
>>28031867
>the procurement department backed down and decided to "reevaluate" it after Boeing and Lockheed started bitching and whining
You shouldn't be commenting on US procurement if you have no idea how the process works.
>>28036652
CNN)Three years behind schedule and some $200 billion over its original budget,
>>28031146
Give this man a NAM
>>28036804
Do you like the idea of ships being blown up by advanced naval mines? I don't.
It's our current fleet of minesweepers that is the real embarrassment for a fleet of the USN's size.
>>28036883
What is your Operating Thetan level if I may ask? I'm OT 8
>>28036957
>not Jewish
Step it up, nigger.
>>28036910
?
I don't think they have even spent close to 200 billion yet
>>28031146
Please don't cite Europe as having anything to do with reliable cars. German cars are riding on undeserved reputation harder than the USMC, and it all gets worse from there
>France
>UK
>Slavstans
None of them can make engines that don't rattle themselves apart.
>>28031871
>Unions don't cost anything
>out of necessity they protect workers
Bernie go back to /pol/
>>28036973
Jewish Thetans are contaminated tho, Aaron
you gotta have a healthy thetan
>>28036945
It's an embarassment that the 700 million dollar corvettes being built aren't going to do anything about the mines tho
And that they were built specifically for a weapons system which was canceled
>>28030521
LMAO WHAT A FUCKING AUTIST
>>28037013
>And that they were built specifically for a weapons system which was canceled
NLOS-LM would have been nice, but the project was shit on by overambitious goals. The MCM package is still going to happen.
>tfw no Spike NLOS equivalent outside of Israel and China
>>28037009
>Australian detected
>>28037013
>700 million dollars
Really?
>>28032197
That only exists in your imagination.
>>28030221
Electronics and the powerplants necessary for them
>>28036703
Government worker union is totally different from private sector unions that protect real workers that do real work and bring real benefits to society.
>>28030317
>he takes the Pentagon Wars seriously
Into the trash your opinion goes
>>28036703
Yeah no. Union members get hurt by strikes too. Dunno about this back pay shit but if it does happen its fucking rare.
ITT: Management scapegoats unions for their fuckups and the schmucky shills that believe it.
>>28037128
ITT retard union worker thinks that he can demand twice the pay of competitors, while never letting the company cut employees or automate, and it doesn't effect the companies bottom line
>>28031916
All government worker unions should be dissolved because those fuckers barely do any work.
One time I was macking on le liberal white woman at a hip bar and she was a teacher at a hopeless black elementary school. She was thoroughly disenchanted by reality. A black teacher was tell her how she liked to hang out in the boys bathroom and watch the boys pee and check out their dicks. Chick reported it and all the black teachers, administration, turned on her and it got racial and hateful and the union didn't protect her.
>>28031552
Concept error, Naval reactors are design to be refueled, even if they say they aren't, which means the fuel cells can be removed, albeit with much work. Also, traveling at more than about 25kn in a commercial ship's underway schedual would amount to about 1000 days underway at 30+ kn. And we have a problem getting nuclear operators out to the fleet as it is. Either we become more of a pump and less of a filter(sending shitty operators out) or we just fuck over the nukes more than we do now.
>>28037151
car companies etc have automated like fucking crazy and do layoffs and surplus oldfucks into early retirement, you're drinking the koolaid
>>28036883
>>28036820
>mfw you need unlimited overtime just to afford OT8
SCAM CULT
C
A
M
C
U
L
T
>>28029694
>unions
>not the same effort to train the workforce
>not the same effort to want to be trained as a workforce
>perhaps it better someone else does it for us to bolster relations as we have other venues to make money while those nations we depend upon are stuck with a narrow set of choices.
>upkeep on shipyards
>our nation is pretty apathetic at the moment, so fuck eettt
>>28030454
I really doubt they will be that much more advanced.
Virginia class are slightly worse than Astute after all.
If anything they will make something like US equivalent of Type 45.
>>28037471
>US equivalent of Type 45
When Flight 3 Burkes will have an advantage in every area what's the point?
>>28036996
Out of 5 largest car companies in the world 3 are from Germany and 2 from Japan. GM is #6.
Say what you want but Japan and EU are simply ahead.
And let's not even mention the high end cars where there is literally 0 American cars. Look at F1 teams. Or the surer expensive cars for millionaires.
>>28037230
fuck off lower thetan
>>28037471
>Virginia class are slightly worse than Astute after all.
Astutes have inferior sonar hardware just for a start. Nice try, though.
>>28037542
Except Darings are more advanced ships than Flight III Burkes.
Burkes are larger and have more cells, but Sea Viper is better than Aegis and Aster is better than SM-2.
>>28030454
>within the decade
Ayyyylmao
>>28037543
Size of the company has nothing to do with whether they produce reliable cars. Only a Japanese can make a reliable car. Not Americans, and not Euros. I am not promoting USA cars, I am bashing Eurocars and it seems you are still on the koolaid about muh Mercedez that spends more time in shop than anything else on the American market
Go look up the Consumer Reports study on reliability
>>28037563
Anon, the two were facing each other in exercises back in 2012.
>“Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.”
They also have much better torpedoes.
>>28037571
>Aster is better than SM-2.
Aster 30 max range is 120km
SM-2ER is 185km
SM-6 is 370km
While the Aster 30 flies slightly faster, it's flight ceiling is lower.
The RN also lacks the fixed wing AWACS aircraft to get maximum range out of the engagement envelope against sea skimmers.
It's not even a contest.
>Sea Viper is better than Aegis
Engages half the simultaneous targets, lacks the fixed wing AWACS availability for datalink tie in. In short, no.
>>28037619
>holding track further out than the USN was expecting
>the same thing as being a better attack boat
>the same thing as having better sonar hardware or processing
Oh, anon...
>>28037652
Quoting wikipedia ranges, are you serious?
Every expert agree that Sea Viper and Aster are better than Aegis and SM-2. It's not even debatable.
>>28037693
Actually, I was quoting USN/DoD numbers. But you feel free to keep making assertions without any sort of sources. Don't get too assmad, little bong. We've just had the foresight not to castrate our navy with quite so many budget cuts.
>>28037693
http://www.eurosam.com/products/naval-systems/
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/aster-anti-missile-missile_datasheet-1424427719.pdf
Seem like decent sources. You got better ones?
>>28037729
>>28037746
The UK makes better weapon systems than the US, and always has. All of the experts agree that the Aster is superior in every regard than any Standard missile type. Each of the six Type 45's is much better than any Burke class, in every way.
>>28037693
>>28037746
Shiiiiiiit.
Eurosam puts the Aster 30 range in a missile intercept at only 30km. Pathetic.
>>28037762
Nice sources you've got there. Oh, wait. I must have missed them through all that anal devastation radiating from your posts.
>>28037762
Oh, so you're trolling. Good to know then.
>>28037729
>>28037746
SM-2 can hit subsonic targets at 180km. If they are not maneuvering and are unlucky. Aster 30 has better kinematics at 120km than SM-2 at 100km.
And Sea Viper is simply more advanced. Every single analysis points that out. Every single expert agree on that.
>>28037652
>Engages half the simultaneous targets
[Citation needed]
Tracking relies on the air search radar, of which SPY-1D is the loser in that battle. It's quoted as being able to track "over 100 targets" while the S1850M "tracks up to 1,000 air targets"
http://benefits.military.com/equipment/view/88640/an-spy-1.html
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/s1850m-long-range-radar
>>28037773
>>28037772
You Yanks are pathetic when someone presents the facts to you. It is quite sad.
>>28037783
Again, wonderful sources you have there.
Also, are you going to argue that a missile with three times the range (the SM-6) has inferior fuel for engagement and maneuvering at Aster max range? Really?
>>28036703
Oh ok. Just like how mass shootings happen all the time according to the news right? When you hear about it in the news, you are hearing about every time a strike happens in any industry with any union. Think about how many industries are unionized.
I am part of a manufacturing union. It happens quite a bit. Also, don't be too comfy. By god, you are part of fucking USPS. You guys might straight up die.
>>28036996
Please read the post again. I never did cite Europe as having anything to do with reliable cars. Unless you think Toyota or Honda are Euro car makers. Although it bears mentioning that Mercs from the 80's were quite reliable.
>>28037764
>Eurosam puts the Aster 30 range in a missile intercept at only 30km. Pathetic.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. This is a normal range for missile intercept. SM-2 can do it up to 25-30km too.
>>28029694
Slaughter everything with a union membership?
>>28029833
You remind me of the kind of faggot who thinks fpga's will overtake asic's. Translation: u r a faget.
>>28037783
Name someone other than Nick Brown.
>>28037798
>talks about AN/SPY-1D
>posts absolutely ridiculous forum source for AN/SPY-1A, and an inaccurate one at that
this just keeps getting funnier and funnier
>>28037830
Read the source. It's from the maker of the integrated system. THEY SPECIFICALLY LIST 30KM AS MAX MISSILE INTERCEPT RANGE. 120km is apparently only for aircraft. Fucking hilarious.
>>28030248
That's because they were built as quickly and cheaply as possible, barely strong enough to not fall apart, most of the time at least. They were not designed to last. They just needed to move cargo for the war effort and chances were good they would probably hit a mine or get torpedoed before they wore out.
>>28037798
AN/SPY-1B and D both track 800+ targets simultaneously at a minimum. You have no clue what you're talking about.
>>28037571
>>28037619
>>28037693
>>28037762
>>28037783
I smell Australian shitposting.
>>28037858
So you have no idea how missile systems work. At all.
Yes, it can intercept missiles at 30km max. Same as SM-2 or PAC-3. This is how missiles work. They are much harder targets.
>>28029889
>Some unions
FTFY
>>28037871
>at minimum
Please, the only source that states 800 targets is an add up of all the arrays to a total of 800, it says nothing about going over that.
>>28037892
That's funny. Especially considering the fact the USN just finished a series of OTH tests with the SM-6. They were potting supersonic missiles flying nap of the earth in complex terrain from 200km out with AWACS datalinking.
I'm sure you're going to claim the Aster does this, right?
>>28037871
And SAMPSON can track over a 1000. At 400nm. AN/SPY-1 max range is 200nm.
>>28030764
inb4 poop deck jokes
>>28037914
>At 400nm
It's hilarious how little you understand about little things like radar horizon and RCS.
>>28037910
Yes actually. The new Aster 45 that is in development does that too.
>>28030822
Well, to be fair, Soviets did have the shipyards to do it. And they did kinda start building one.
>>28037922
Oh, that's neat. So you'll have sources for that successful test, then?
>>28036910
>Using CNN as a source
TOP KEK!
>>28037930
And it was so totally easy they shat a dozen out, right?
Oh, wait, they never even finished one.
At no time in history has Russia operated a full sized carrier.
>All these Brits keked by not having fixed wing AWACS support
It must suck.
>>28037910
>The Surface-to-Air Missile Platform/Terrain (SAMP/T) air defense system from Eurosam was again tested against a simulated 300 km range tactical ballistic missile target that was launched from an aircraft.
>>28037931
>The Aster NT would allow the current Aster Block 1 to hit ballistic missiles at a range of 1,000 kilometers, an extension of 400 kilometers from its current range.
>The Block 2 would be built beginning in 2020 and be able to intercept ballistic missiles at a range of 3,000 kilometers.
>>28037941
>> Says no-one has shipyards
>> Is proven wrong
>> Butthurts
Nice
>>28037919
Go read a bit on SAMPSON. It has twice the range of AEGIS radars. It's a much more modern system. SAMPSONs are also mounted much higher.
>>28037941
What is your definition of a full sized carrier? Kuznetsov is 65k, that's as big as they come outside of super carriers. The Kiev's were 45k full load too, that's bigger than just about any other non-US carrier as well.
>>28037987
Kuznetsov could operate only 16 Su-33. Rest of it's 40 aircraft were helicopters.
>>28037764
>SM-2
>semi active seeker
>20G limit
>Aster
>active seeker
>60G limit
>direct hit capability
They are not even comparable. All tests show Aster to be twice as effective. And active seeker makes a gigantic difference.
>>28037996
So what is it that you consider full size? Forrestal and up?
>>28030268
But we really don't need to have that many ships compared to what we have now.
If you look at Reagan's 400 ship program which failed to a great degree, it is much cheaper to upgrade current Ticonderoga class cruisers when we already have a highly competent shell.
Eventaully, we can upgrade to the memiest version of stealth (Stealth on planes isn't that bad), i.e. stealth design on boats.
With the Aegis system, the only thing lacking in the navy is a longer range AS missile, then again most navy ships operate within the range of a carrier which can use planes.
But all around, the USN has no need for a massive fleet which China is achieving.
>>28037951
>land-based
>not OTH
>No sexy guided datalink
Wew lad
>>28038026
65k can be considered a supercarrier if it's an efficient design like QE.
Kuznetsov was a cruise missile platform first, carrier second.
Chinese CV's based on Kuznetsov will be true carriers.
I really wonder how good these things will be.
>>28038054
I haven't seen anyone call the QE class a super carrier.
>>28038066
I saw it used a couple of times, but yeah it really shouldn't.
>>28038062
>No weight of carrier
Into the crash it goes
>>28038095
>tfw no Future French Carrier
Maybe now they will actually do it.
The US desperately needs ports/ships capable of exporting liquid natural gas. We have a ton of ports designed to import and expand LNG but jack shit when it comes to liquefaction and export. A relic of the fact that the ports were built before anyone imagined the US could be a natural gas explorer. But now with the amount of natural gas we can potentially frack, we need to get on our export game.
>>28038122
They probably will. I doubt frogs will stand UK having two times more carriers for long.
>>28038062
>C.U.C.K ramp
China confirmed for small penises and keked to the Japanese
>>28031777
Dirty bombs are terror weapons
Kill count is irrelevant over the knowledge that they managed to steal it, and managed to use it scaring the piss out of the uninformed masses.
3-D printing.
And thus American industry continues to decline.
>>28038341
The second reply to this thread had some pretty good ideas.
>>28029706
My vote is for this, only /k/avemen will survive.
>>28038062
Considering it's a copy of literally one the worst carriers ever made, probably not very much.
>>28036868
>How can America compete with this?
>>28033630
USACE maintains the waterways because hauling bulk commodities like coal, limestone, and taconite is vital to national security.
>>28036804
its only pork when its not your district. marinette marine knows how to build a boat.
>>28030493
This.
I've worked in a 3D printing lab and I can tell you that it is not as magical as people think it is.
>>28037984
You completely missed the point where, due to simple physics and the curvature of the earth, it will never have a longer range than about 35mi against sea skimming targets. The fact that it's mounted higher gives it maybe another 5 miles.
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
>>28037987
Fully capable air wings. This includes some sort of native AWACS and airborne UNREP today, with 3-4 squadrons of CAP/strike aircraft and EW support. In the 1950's, it meant something a little different.
>>28038009
Nice source there.
>>28038041
First, it was a 600 ship program.
Secondly, why do you keep using "we" when English is clearly not your primary language?
>>28039411
>sea skimming targets
Nobody even mentioned that. Entire discussion was about standard airborne targets.
>>28039437
see >>28037652
Right in the first counter post to this RN so superior bullshit.
>>28039454
You do know that RN have AWACS helicopters right?
Yes, fixed wing AWACS is better, but not much. And they will probably both get replaced by drones.
>>28039471
Right. Because the USN is rushing to replace the single most important aviation asset in the fleet with a platform incredibly susceptible to EW. That makes a ton of sense. Yet another claim with zero sources to back it.
>You do know that RN have AWACS helicopters right?
Still the difference between 260km range against sea skimmers and 450km range against sea skimmers. As of right now, they don't even have the AWACS Merlins deployed.
>>28039486
>The U.S. Defense Department’s 30-year Aircraft Procurement Plan for the Navy and Air Force unleashed a few surprises, such as the possibility of replacing the Air Force’s E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft with unmanned systems.
>>28039530
>E-3 is the same thing as the E-2D
>USAF is the same thing as USN
Anon. Just stop. you're looking dumber by the second.
>>28039541
If they are considering replacing E-3 with drones they sure as fuck consider replacing E-2 with them.
>>28039555
Well. There it is. I've been having a serious discussion with someone who doesn't understand the procurement priority differences between the USAF and USN; shit, he doesn't even understand the difference between the E-3 and E-2D, and what the platform requirements actually are.
I need to spend less time on /k/.
Fuck this. I'm out.
>>28039555
The current plan is for the X-47C to be operated under the command of E-2D flight leaders, not as a replacement. It's only a supplement, for range, stealth, and strike purposes.
>>28039486
Yeah. Because the carriers aren't commissioned yet.
>>28039568
Are you autistic or something?
Everybody all around the world is talking about drones for AEW.
>>28029694
Well if we learned anything from 2009, government subsidies tend to (not)work
>>28039604
No. No they are not. The USN especially is not interested in replacing manned AWACS with drone platforms. Augment? Yes. Replace? Not on your life.
Now shut up. The grown ups are talking.
>>28039555
Augmentation/supplementing isn't replacing.
>>28037910
>They were potting supersonic missiles flying nap of the earth in complex terrain from 200km out with AWACS datalinking.
>plotting a supersonic missile-sized target flying in a manner that occludes it using terrain (and is therefore impossible to see) at a range that is almost double radar horizon for a ship-based radar (requiring OTH radar with shit-all resolution, if possible at all)
I don't believe you
>>28029765
>>28029777
>>28029889
Unions are bad for business. This is by design, as unions are supposed to champion the rights of the workers. In many instances the unions actually just suckle money off the workers and do jack shit to protect them from the big bad businesses, because these days bad press and public opinion is enough to keep businesses in check.
Regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the matter, unions don't have any place interfering with national security by slowing down the manufacture of ships or arms.
>>28039659
http://news.usni.org/2015/06/17/navy-raytheon-test-standard-missile-6-against-supersonic-over-the-horizon-threat
nap of the earth just means terrain following. It does not automatically occlude it from all sensors.
>>28039685
"Mexico fired the SM-6 at a medium-range supersonic target while acquiring the target location from offboard sensors communicating through the Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA) network."
Bit of intellectual dishonesty to say it didn't use AWACS datalinking when it used third party sensors.
Hitting something with a datalinked firing solution is perfectly believable.
>>28039626
AEW sounds like a perfect application for drones, though.
Radar/Battlespace data is quickly shifting towards datalinking, and AEW assets need long time on station. Drones are very capable of that.
>>28039659
>What is literally the entire point of Cooperative Engagement Capability
>>28039701
>AEW sounds like a perfect application for drones, though.
Because putting the lynchpin of your air defense strategy on a platform which suffers from bandwidth degradation or even outages in a high-EW environment is an excellent idea, right? Right?
>>28039724
Don't bother, anon. He has literally no understanding of how these systems work from a concept or tactical standpoint.
>>28039726
If you're having issues transmitting control data to a drone, what makes you think you're going to be able to recieve radar data from an E-2D?
>>28039730
It was my first post in the thread, pointing out the claim was unlikely.
and it turns out it was.
So how about you spin on it.
