Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
Happy to see this, as my grandfather retired from there and I toured it as a kid:
https://www.wsj.com/business/u-s-steel-to-restart-...U.S. Steel plans to resume steelmaking at an Illinois plant where the Trump administration intervened last summer to keep production going.
The company stopped making steel at Granite City Works two years ago and had planned to further curtail operations before the administration blocked the move in September. It said it now sees signs of rising demand that justify restarting one of Granite City’s two blast furnaces early next year to produce molten iron for steel.The deal with Nippon Steel is seeing renovations to other plants:
U.S. Steel also is expected to need the mill’s steelmaking capacity as some of its other mills undergo improvements promised by Nippon Steel 5401 1.87%increase; green up pointing triangle, the new owner of U.S. Steel.
“We are confident in our ability to safely and profitably operate the mill to meet 2026 demand,” said U.S. Steel Chief Executive David Burritt.
The company expects to add about 400 employees at Granite City to operate the blast furnace, raising the plant’s workforce to about 1,200, a person familiar with the matter said. The decision to restart the furnace wasn’t influenced by the Trump administration, the person said.
Steel demand has been weak for much of the past two years, reflecting struggles in the manufacturing and construction sectors.Steel demand should tick up - potentially quite a lot - as the Navy starts building more ships in US yards.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Steel demand should tick up - potentially quite a lot - as the Navy starts building more ships in US yards.
The Navy just aborted the Constellation frigate program.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Navy just aborted the Constellation frigate program.They did, yes.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60732The money part is bolded below:
Each year, as directed by the Congress, the Department of Defense submits a report with the President’s budget describing the Navy’s plan for its future fleet for the next 30 years. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the Navy’s 2025 plan and estimates its costs. Overall, the Navy wants to build a larger fleet whose firepower is distributed among more ships than it is today.
Cost. The Navy’s 2025 plan would cost 46 percent more annually in real terms (that is, adjusted to remove the effects of inflation) than the average amount appropriated over the past 5 years. CBO estimates that total shipbuilding costs would average $40 billion (in 2024 dollars) over the next 30 years, which is about 17 percent more than the Navy estimates. CBO’s estimates for the 2025 plan range from 8 percent to 16 percent higher in real terms than its estimates for the three alternatives in the Navy’s 2024 plan. Including the costs of operating and maintaining those ships, buying new aircraft and weapons, and funding the Marine Corps, the Navy’s total budget would need to increase from $255 billion today to $340 billion (in 2024 dollars) in 2054 to implement the 2025 plan.
Fleet Size. The number of battle force ships would increase from 295 today to 390 in 2054. Before increasing, however, the fleet would become smaller in the near term, falling to 283 ships in 2027.
Purchasing Plan. The Navy would purchase a total of 364 new combat ships and combat logistics and support ships. Overall, under the 2025 plan, the Navy would buy more current generation ships and more smaller ships than it would have purchased under any of the 2024 plan’s three alternatives.
Fleet Capabilities. The fleet’s firepower would be reduced over the next decade, but thereafter, as the fleet grew, its firepower would increase and become distributed among more ships.
Industrial Base. Over the next 30 years, the nation’s shipyards would need to produce substantially more naval tonnage than they have produced over the past 10 years. The rate of production of nuclear-powered submarines, in particular, would need to increase significantly.
No. of Recommendations: 0
become smaller in the near term, falling to 283 ships in 2027.
Apropos of nothing so far in this thread…..
2027 is the year by which Xi has told China to be ready for war….
No. of Recommendations: 3
Apropos of nothing so far in this thread…..
2027 is the year by which Xi has told China to be ready for war….
The scandal in their strategic rocket force (or whatever the PLAN calls it) seems to have pushed that date back to 2029, btw. That's why you're seeing the US frantically try to get the F-47 into service and that lots of money is being dumped in companies like Anduril, who are building drones and whatnot out of parts you can get pretty much anywhere...
No. of Recommendations: 1
seeing the US frantically try to get the F-47 into service Fat chance. The GC is Boeing. What has Boeing delivered on schedule, and on budget, to WD? Not the new Presidential aircraft. Years behind schedule.
And the E-7, the replacement for the E-3 AWACS we have known for decades?
Air Force cancels E-7 Wedgetail, citing survivability and cost concerns
“The Department is canceling the E-7 Wedgetail program due to significant delays with cost increases from $588 million to $724 million for aircraft and survivability concerns in this contested environment, while investing in alternate solutions, including space-based capabilities and adding additional E-2D aircraft,” the senior military official told reporters in a briefing today.https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/air-force-canc...If the USAF tries to push the F-47, they will pay Billions in expediting charges, on top of Billions for "development", and get nothing, because that is how military procurement works these days.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Navy just aborted the Constellation frigate program.
True. But they've ordered 4 Ford class carriers. And an option for two more.
I'm glad to see steel coming back. It is vital to maintain domestic sources for critical materiel, such as steel. If we end up in a shooting war, we don't want Russia or China to be able to cut our supply lines. We should have domestic sources for lots of things, and make sure people continue the knowledge of how to make it. It's really difficult to regain manufacturing knowledge once it's lost.
No. of Recommendations: 6
True. But they've ordered 4 Ford class carriers. And an option for two more.
The US uses about 100 million tons of steel per year.
A Ford Class carrier uses somewhere between 50,000-70,000 tons of steel in its construction. Those 4 carriers ordered are spread out over decades.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Two are expected before 2030. I couldn't find dates on the other two. Ironically, "supply chain problems" are said to be responsible for the delays.
Also, the Constellation class was only 7K tons fully loaded (i.e. not all of that was steel). Though they wanted about 20 of them, that's not enough mass to equal 4 Ford class carriers.
We need to be sourcing more of our own steel. With tensions heating up with China, we can't rely on external supplies that could be interdicted.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Is this because of a steel shortage? It seems to be that large ships are floating targets for drone strikes. Maybe the Navy is learning from the Russo-Ukranian War.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Is this because of a steel shortage?
"Supply chain issues". That's what I read, without many specifics.
It seems to be that large ships are floating targets for drone strikes.
I've read that they are trying to factor in that new dynamic of warfare. Keep in mind that a supercarrier never goes anywhere by itself. It has numerous escorts, all of which are tasked with protecting it. I suspect they are figuring out how to get the screening vessels better equipped to deal with drones. The utility of the carrier in projecting power is too great to abandon the platform.
They've been vulnerable to diesel subs since forever. Seems every time we have an exercise, a smaller nation (e.g. Sweden) has a diesel boat that manages to "sink" one of our carriers.
