Yeah…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_w...
> and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards).
Canadian shipyards are actually relatively busy nowadays:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Strategy
To the point that some things will not be built locally:
* https://news.usni.org/2024/11/08/canadian-officials-pricing-...
* https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/20...
Not sure if some more civilian-leaning things could perhaps be available.
And for optics purposes, all he needs is "some win", not something that materially matters.
But as with all Trumpisms, we'll see. :\
I bring up Canada and Mexico because using their shipyard capacity (especially Mexico) would be a win-win: forex investment in heavy industry for them, competitive labor costs for the US, and the US Navy gets recapitalized.
Have you tried listening to his speeches at rallies? Not the clips or extracts, and not transcripts, but the full speeches from start to finish.
Dude is all over the place. It's often hard to tell what planet he's on.
During one of the presidential debates he went on about immigrants eating cats and dogs.
Or at least, he's crazy in the same way George W Bush was dumb.
Which is to say, it's a facade they play because they find it works with their base and to their advantage.
I do not believe it is a façade in either case (Bush, Trump).
It's a mistake to ignore facts because they're inconvenient to what we want to believe.
And thinking Trump only won 2 elections because of other people is an difficult fit with reality.
Just because you or I dislike someone doesn't mean we should discount them.
The highest concern for the Navy isn't cost, it is will the ship survive in war. You can make a navy ship a lot cheaper by sacrificing armor and reliability. But those are thing the navy doesn't want to sacrifice. Cost is important, but it is at most #3 on the list of concerns.
Since I have family in the Navy, and want those ships to protect me if there is a war I agree with the navy. Cost is important, but it is not the most important thing.
Given that the Navy claims it needs more ships, and god knows extended and double-pump deployments bear that out, it might be better served by having 2 less capable ships than 1 more capable ship.
In the same way that the M3 and M4 beat Germany, despite being individually inferior to mid and late war German tanks.
Furthermore, the clusterfuck that is the Constellation-class frigate procurement program proves that the Navy is objectively bad at understanding how shifting requirements interacts with build time and cost.
PS: You're not the only person with family in the Navy.
Both Canada and Mexico would be obvious allies for this, and it would be a win/win solution for less sensitive ships / ship components (e.g. finish shell, then fit in US shipyards).
> Another option would be to order civilian-like designs with a 'basic' shell, and then do retrofitting for military needs domestically.
This has historically been the biggest problem with the US Navy -- they're really dumb / bad at specifications.
Imho, the US would be well-served by taking ultimate control of ship design out of the Navy's sole hands, and infusing someone with a cost-focused incentive into the process.
It's a terrible joke at this point that the USN starts with "We'll pick an off the shelf foreign design" and then customizes it so much it's no longer mass producible.