Shipbuilder Warns of Layoffs if Biden Doesn’t Buy More Destroyers

[MaryP]

Is true. And sadly, nothing is really being done about it.

The world's biggest grave robbery: Asia’s disappearing WWII shipwrecks

Exclusive: the unmarked graves of thousands of sailors are threatened by illegal metal salvagers

www.theguardian.com

Inside Science

www.insidescience.org

Huge chunks of both the HMAS Perth and USS Houston are now gone. Primarily to be turned into ships in the shipyards of Indonesia. Most of those nations in the area like Indonesia and China have no actual steel production of their own. Instead they recycle it. And as the number of old ships is rapidly vanishing and prices are going up, many have resorted to stealing it from wrecks.

It's recycling. I hate the thought of all those ships cluttering up the ocean. If they can be removed, good on them! Huge war ships shouldn't be used as coffins. Do you really think those bodies are still there? They have found none on the Titanic.

 

[bongsaway]

It would be great if the United States had more destroyers built (to keep people employed) and gifted them to Taiwan in case the Chinese Emperor orders an attack on that island.

Quite the expensive gift. I notice money doesn't matter when it comes to military spending and then let's give away all those dollars but spend those dollars on American infrastructure and creating more than three thousand american jobs, oh hell no!

 

[bongsaway]

Shipbuilder Warns of Layoffs if Biden Doesn’t Buy More Destroyers

Bath Iron Works told Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks it will need to cut its workforce by 2,500 if more ships aren’t ordered soon.

www.defenseone.com

Not an ultimatum, but a warning that what is in the Pentagons "orders-pipeline" is not enough to retain the current shipbuilding workforce at Bath.

So what's that pay come out to for the average shipbuilder per hour? Do we need them?

 

[Dayton3]

I notice money doesn't matter when it comes to military spending

Money always matters in military spending.

 

[bongsaway]

Money always matters in military spending.

Uh huh.

 

[Questerr]

That isn't based on any level of personal expertise though. It is based on

1) Studying the work of actual experts.
2) Being willing to think outside of the box.

Generals are the actual experts. You’ve advocated ridiculous stuff like preemptive nuclear war with China that no expert has or would recommend.

 

[fortune]

Shipbuilder Warns of Layoffs if Biden Doesn’t Buy More Destroyers

Bath Iron Works told Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks it will need to cut its workforce by 2,500 if more ships aren’t ordered soon.

www.defenseone.com

Not an ultimatum, but a warning that what is in the Pentagons "orders-pipeline" is not enough to retain the current shipbuilding workforce at Bath.

There are about 12 more littorals to be built between green bay and Mississippi and ten Italian frigates on the books ( also built in green bay).
Stand off warefare is going to need very fast ships.

 

[Oozlefinch]

It's recycling. I hate the thought of all those ships cluttering up the ocean. If they can be removed, good on them! Huge war ships shouldn't be used as coffins. Do you really think those bodies are still there? They have found none on the Titanic.

THOSE ARE WAR GRAVES!

So I suppose you are also fine if I went into the cemetery and dug up all of your relatives and ancestors. After all, anything left with them is just "cluttering up the ground".

These are recognized graves and memorials to those lost on the ship. Sorry, but I find the very idea that such should just be destroyed our of greed to be distusting.

 

[Dayton3]

Generals are the actual experts. You’ve advocated ridiculous stuff like preemptive nuclear war with China that no expert has or would recommend.

Not necessarily. A general can be an expert on logistics for the Army yet know almost nothing about submarine operations. Likewise an admiral who is highly knowledgeable regarding submarine operations might well know next to nothing about the deployment of airborne forces.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Generals are the actual experts.

Not really. They are experts, but only in the area they have been working in for decades.

A General who has spent a career in Infantry will know only the basics of Air Defense. And the same way, a General that spent decades in Air Defense will know only the basics of Infantry. That is why they have a staff of other "Subject Matter Experts" to handle those aspects for them.

This is why I often times laugh at the "subject matter experts" I see on TV shows anymore. They get somebody who spent a decade or so in say the Air Force as a pilot, then ask for their "expert opinions" on everything from tanks and infantry to naval ships and the missiles that other countries use.

Might as well ask an expert in repairing motorcycles to postulate on the newest jet airplane. Both are vehicles, and obviously if somebody is an expert in one, they must know all, right?

 

[Dayton3]

Not really. They are experts, but only in the area they have been working in for decades.

A General who has spent a career in Infantry will know only the basics of Air Defense. And the same way, a General that spent decades in Air Defense will know only the basics of Infantry. That is why they have a staff of other "Subject Matter Experts" to handle those aspects for them.

This is why I often times laugh at the "subject matter experts" I see on TV shows anymore. They get somebody who spent a decade or so in say the Air Force as a pilot, then ask for their "expert opinions" on everything from tanks and infantry to naval ships and the missiles that other countries use.

Might as well ask an expert in repairing motorcycles to postulate on the newest jet airplane. Both are vehicles, and obviously if somebody is an expert in one, they must know all, right?

I learned in Debate class about the pitfalls of "invoking false authority". It is basically a lazy way of arguing because you're saying "my expert says this" rather than making a logical argument yourself.

Note it is annoying in a discussion online because if you question the knowledge of an "expert" people here (and elsewhere) start screaming that you "hate science".

 

[Oozlefinch]

I learned in Debate class about the pitfalls of "invoking false authority". It is basically a lazy way of arguing because you're saying "my expert says this" rather than making a logical argument yourself.

Note it is annoying in a discussion online because if you question the knowledge of an "expert" people here (and elsewhere) start screaming that you "hate science".

And many cherry pick what and who they want to listen to. The replace doing their own research with blind faith in what they want to believe.

Myself, I think I frustrate a lot of people because I in general go into such things with an open mind. And it stays open, and I just accumulate more and more data and move to where that data goes. And if anything, questionable data, conflicting data, or seeing that data is used incorrectly or being purposefully manipulated will generally make me turn away from those claims.

And more and more lately, I have seen that such things have taken on almost a religious significance with the "True Believers". One only has to look at Elron Musk to see that. Yet, if somebody dares to question his almost insane claims, they are branded as "anti-science". Or even playing with what a "scientist" even is. I mentioned a quote of one not long ago, and got blasted for it. With people screaming he is not a "scientist", even though he holds a masters in Biological Anthropology, and was a medical doctor. And took his post-doctoral fellowship at the Salk Institute. Yet, he is not a "scientist". Yet a guy with a bachelors in mechanical engineering is, only because he agrees with their viewpoint.

Most of those "experts" will say almost anything that the outlet wants to hear. Like all the "experts" in 1990 and 1991 that were screaming about the high casualties of the Gulf War. Yet, funny that they kept calling on them even afterwards. None stepping back to wonder why they should be trusted when they were so far off of the mark before.

 

[Dayton3]

Anyone remember in 1945 the U.S. Admiral (IIRC) who said the
"atomic bomb is the stupidest thing ever built, the bomb will never go off! And I speak as an expert on explosives."

 

[Oozlefinch]

Anyone remember in 1945 the U.S. Admiral (IIRC) who said the
"atomic bomb is the stupidest thing ever built, the bomb will never go off! And I speak as an expert on explosives."

"The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end."

Made in a report to Congress in 1843 by Henry Ellsworth, the Commissioner of the United States Patent Office.

Of course, it must be thanked that Der Paper Hanger was just as ignorant as Admiral Leahy, who is the one that said that to President Truman. In Germany, all research into fission was forbidden. Their leader rejected it because it was "Jewish Science", and thought that because of the radioactivity it was just a newer version of a chemical weapon. Something he had already forbidden to be used. Which is why most of the German research was trying to do the impossible. Go straight to a fusion explosion, without a fission one to get it started.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Money always matters in military spending.

Except when it doesn't.

 

[Questerr]

Not really. They are experts, but only in the area they have been working in for decades.

A General who has spent a career in Infantry will know only the basics of Air Defense. And the same way, a General that spent decades in Air Defense will know only the basics of Infantry. That is why they have a staff of other "Subject Matter Experts" to handle those aspects for them.

This is why I often times laugh at the "subject matter experts" I see on TV shows anymore. They get somebody who spent a decade or so in say the Air Force as a pilot, then ask for their "expert opinions" on everything from tanks and infantry to naval ships and the missiles that other countries use.

Might as well ask an expert in repairing motorcycles to postulate on the newest jet airplane. Both are vehicles, and obviously if somebody is an expert in one, they must know all, right?

Yet Dayton claims he knows more than Generals who've spent their entire lives trying to prevent nuclear war. He wants to start one. Which is very brave of him living hundreds of miles from any nuclear target.

 

[Peter King]

Shipbuilder Warns of Layoffs if Biden Doesn’t Buy More Destroyers

Bath Iron Works told Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks it will need to cut its workforce by 2,500 if more ships aren’t ordered soon.

www.defenseone.com

Not an ultimatum, but a warning that what is in the Pentagons "orders-pipeline" is not enough to retain the current shipbuilding workforce at Bath.

Then maybe they have too many staff. The US cannot keep pumping out destroyers/pumping in tax dollars so that commercial companies can stay afloat. Maybe they should try and get more international orders or commercial shipping orders rather than depending on the Pentagon.

 

[fortune]

Then maybe they have too many staff. The US cannot keep pumping out destroyers/pumping in tax dollars so that commercial companies can stay afloat. Maybe they should try and get more international orders or commercial shipping orders rather than depending on the Pentagon.

It is going to be a new kind of warfare... AI robotics, AI swarms 12" helicopters, electronics is our future in killing

 

[aociswundumho]

That is commercial ships. The hulls of even WWII warships are far more valuable because of the quality of the steel used.

Interesting. How thick is a hull typically?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Interesting. How thick is a hull typically?

How high do birds fly? How deep do fish swim?

You are aware that literally is a nonsensical question, right? Heck, even the quote of mine you are responding to, I did not say a single word about the thickness. I stated that the quality of the steel used was the factor, not the thickness. I also specifically stated warships. You are apparently asking about hulls in general.

Now if you want to discuss ship hulls, first phrase it into an actual question that can be answered.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Then maybe they have too many staff. The US cannot keep pumping out destroyers/pumping in tax dollars so that commercial companies can stay afloat. Maybe they should try and get more international orders or commercial shipping orders rather than depending on the Pentagon.

OK, simple question. How long should we use our current equipment.

This is really not a hard question, how long? 20 years? 30 years? 40 years?

The Burke class destroyers were built with a 30 year lifespan. And the oldest of those is the USS Arleigh Burke, a DDS of Flight I. And one of the things killed this year was the 10 year life extension program, that would have taken all 27 of the Flight I and Flight II destroyers and extended their service life for another decade. The USS Areligh Burke is now scheduled to be retired within the next 4 years, as it will have exceeded it's lifespan. And that is one of 5 ships that will be retired by 2026, and we need to replace it with something.

We do need ships, and if we are not extending the life of our current ones, then we need to build new ones to replace them. And even then, you can only extend them for so long, and then they need to be retired no matter what. And most military equipment is only built with a roughly 30 year lifespan. And much of this is rapidly coming due because a huge chunk of the equipment we are using now literally dates back to the Reagan era buildup. Which ended over 35 years ago.

And it is a question that is asked every day be every person and business in the country. How many trucking companies use 30 year old trucks? How many people are driving around day to day in 30 year old cars? How many stores are using 30 year old cash register and POS systems? How many airlines are flying passengers in 30 year old airplanes? The answer is, not many. After a while, maintenance is simply so expensive that they are no longer cost effective, and newer systems are better. Yet, for some reason when it comes time to update literally 30+ year old equipment for the military, people start screaming like they were sacrificing their first born male child.

I still often joke that when I was operating PATRIOT missile systems a decade ago, I was the only person in my Battalion (24 launchers, 48 crewmen) that was older than the launcher I worked on. And in the last few years, the newer kids I was training were younger than the HMMWV vehicles we use. I think the last major deliveries of HMMWV trucks for the military was in the middle of the Clinton Administration. That was over 3 Presidents ago.

 

[gino]

Certainly, but China would not launch just one missile, it would launch multiples at each ship, it would use subs to launch torpedos, it would send jets and bombers as well.

The volume of fire would overwhelm the Taiwan ships,

Yep, I don't trust modern tech to be able to handle a mass swarm of missiles and planes coming at them. If China REALLY wanted to invade Taiwan, they would be willing to suffer serious casualties in the beginning to run us out of ammo/missiles. Quantity has a quality all its own. Hopefully, China never decides to invade, cause if they do, it's going to be ugly for all sides.

 

[braindrain]

Actually I don't. Whether you want to stay ignorant or not is your choice.

Go do your own research.

IE you have no evidence and are just making crap up.

 

[Dayton3]

It is going to be a new kind of warfare... AI robotics, AI swarms 12" helicopters, electronics is our future in killing

Where do you get an idea like that?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Where do you get an idea like that?

The last conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan

In a mid to low level conflict drones will be the main pieces of equipment used. From attacking anti air installations, drones will be used. From attacking aircraft at airports the use of a drone swarm will be used to take out the aircraft when on the ground defenceless.

The US is working hard on ways to defeat drone from lasers to EW countermeasures in order to protect bases. Russian aircraft have been attacked by drone swarms in Syria by adhock drones, not ones created by a major industrial power.

The only time drones won’t be the main part of combat would be in an active major offensive maneuver with thousands of soldiers, tanks etc moving to engage the enemy and take territory. Which won’t occur until after the drones have softened the enemy