The Geoje Shipyard Boasts the World’s Greatest Dock Turnover Rate
The dock turnover rate is the number of ships that a dock can launch ships. The greater the turnover rate indicates the more sophisticated shipbuilding capacity and production efficiency.
In addition, dock turnover rate is the most reliable yardstick for measuring shipyard’s technical capacity and production efficiency. The largest dock at SHI’s Geoje Shipyard, Dock No.3,is 640m long, 97.5m wide, and 13m deep.
The Whitehouse has issued a document entitled “America’s Maritime Action Plan.” You can download it here. Be aware this is a plan, but there has been no implementing legislation. That is expected with the 2027 budget request.
Of course the Coast Guard is all over this document, much of it regarding marine inspection and credentialing including calls for deregulation.
It also calls for recapitalizing public shipyards including the Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore. I would hope there would be movement toward providing a Coast Guard Yard in the Pacific, but there was no mention of new public shipyards. It does say,
Invest in digital shipyard infrastructure and upgrade pier utilities and electrical systems to support modern combat systems and sensitive electronics. Use Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program lessons to inform future investments to expand these shipyards’ ability to take on larger and more complex work.
The Arctic is also featured prominently. There is also a call for support of increase automation.
The Maritime Press has reacted:
- Marine Link: “Trump Administration Unveils Details of Maritime Action Plan”
- Marine Log: “White House releases long-awaited Maritime Action Plan”
- gCaptain: “Trump Unveils White House Maritime Action Plan to Restore U.S. Seapower”
The Marine Link article is a quick overview. The Marine Log article quotes large sections of the plan. gCaptain provides a realistic appreciation of how likely the plan is to succeed.
On questions of national defense, how big a merchant marine do we need? How much can we depend on allies to provide shipping? We definitely need to do something. During the war against Iraq we shipped American weapons on Russian ships.
The stated aim is to “restore America’s maritime dominance” and create a “self-sustaining domestic shipbuilding sector.” Realistically that is not going to happen. Historically the US merchant marine has not done well in peacetime since the Civil War. US shipbuilding hasn’t been price competitive for 150 years. We have been able to quickly generate a large merchant marine in WWI and WWII but in both cases it quickly declined in the post war periods. Simply put, other nations can do it more cheaply. There is no way we can build ships cheaper than China or South Korea without massive subsidies.
Make no mistake. This plan involves subsidies, grants, and tax advantage, but that does not mean at least parts of the plan are not justified. But this plan is very broad and dominance is not a realistic goal so what level of US owned merchant marine is enough? It’s not in there. If we really need more US flag merchant ships do they really have to be built in the US. Imagine the irony of China subsidizing the building of ships for the US that will carry supplies to an embattled Taiwan. There are dozens of friendly nations that want to buy US made weapons that also build ships. We can work a deal. The Coast Guard is getting icebreakers from Finland, so it’s possible.
We want more yards in the US that can repair battle damage, but if we want excess capacity its not possible for them to be profitable so do what we did for over a hundred years and have government owned Navy and Coast Guard yards. It is a form of insurance just like the entire Defense budget. Government owned yards are responsive and don’t require bids and months of legal hassles with the loosing bidders.
Looks like this plan may also include creating sources of funding that would could bypass the Congressional process and would subsidize individuals or organizations selected by the administration. I am not sure that is even constitutional. Certainly it sounds as if it might be subject to abuse.
Establish the Maritime Security Trust Fund
The Maritime Security Trust Fund (MSTF) would provide a dedicated, mandatory funding stream to support programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry and Merchant Marine. By capturing certain identified revenues, the MSTF would ensure consistent, long-term investment in America’s shipbuilding capacity, fleet expansion, and maritime workforce. E.O. 14269 directs OMB, in coordination with DOT, to deliver a legislative proposal for a reliable funding mechanism to sustain MAP programs.
Recommended Policy Action
• Establish the MSTF. By securing stable, long-term funding, the MSTF would ensure consistent support for investments in shipbuilding, fleet expansion, industrial base
resilience, and maritime workforce development. Authorized expenditures would include programs identified as helpful for the promotion, growth, and strengthening of the domestic maritime sector. (p. 22/23)
This would not only include a tax on imports through maritime ports but also a tax on imports over the Mexican and Canadian borders,
“Impose a Land Port Maintenance Tax to balance payments from importations across land ports versus maritime ports;” (p. 15)
“Enforce the payment of fees at our borders and prevent the circumvention of certain charges by importing through land borders as opposed to maritime ports;” (p. 33)
For a history of Government programs to maintain an American Merchant Marine check out, “The Maritime Administration’s First 100 Years: 1916 – 2016.”
There is an alternate view here.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 