The post Can America Recover From Its Shipbuilding Crisis? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Guided-missile cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66), the German navy frigate FGS Hamburd (F220), the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), and the Military Sealift Command fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10) during a replenishment-at-sea, Arabian Sea, March 23, 2013. Image courtesy Ryan D. McLearnon/US Navy. (Photo via Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images). Getty Images Concerned experts, both civilian and military, have been warning for years about the dangers presented by the shocking decline in US shipbuilding capabilities, particularly in contrast to those of our rising geopolitical adversary, China. This week’s announcement by Secretary of the Navy John Phelan of the cancellation of the Constellation-class frigate-building program only added fuel to the fire. “After decades of apathy and neglect, there are no easy nor cheap solutions to getting the Navy on course and in time to deter let alone persevere in a war with China,” Captain Brent Sadler (U.S. Navy, Retired), senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told me via instant messaging. “Canceling the frigate program is far from adequate as it does not address the need for more shipbuilding capacity, more firepower in the western Pacific by 2027, and a needed frigate class ship to round out a perilously unbalanced fleet.” A shipbuilding collapse The frigate program is just one of many maritime canaries in the coal mine. American shipbuilding delivered nearly 90% of global output at its high-water mark during WWII. Today it has collapsed to just 0.2% of gross tonnage—essentially nonexistent. While China builds well in excess of 1,000 oceangoing ships per year, America makes fewer than five. Sadler has been sounding the alarm about that for years, tying his beloved Navy’s needs to the equally urgent matter of commercial shipbuilding. “We haven’t really done the due diligence, the hard work and commitment of… The post Can America Recover From Its Shipbuilding Crisis? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Guided-missile cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66), the German navy frigate FGS Hamburd (F220), the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), and the Military Sealift Command fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10) during a replenishment-at-sea, Arabian Sea, March 23, 2013. Image courtesy Ryan D. McLearnon/US Navy. (Photo via Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images). Getty Images Concerned experts, both civilian and military, have been warning for years about the dangers presented by the shocking decline in US shipbuilding capabilities, particularly in contrast to those of our rising geopolitical adversary, China. This week’s announcement by Secretary of the Navy John Phelan of the cancellation of the Constellation-class frigate-building program only added fuel to the fire. “After decades of apathy and neglect, there are no easy nor cheap solutions to getting the Navy on course and in time to deter let alone persevere in a war with China,” Captain Brent Sadler (U.S. Navy, Retired), senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told me via instant messaging. “Canceling the frigate program is far from adequate as it does not address the need for more shipbuilding capacity, more firepower in the western Pacific by 2027, and a needed frigate class ship to round out a perilously unbalanced fleet.” A shipbuilding collapse The frigate program is just one of many maritime canaries in the coal mine. American shipbuilding delivered nearly 90% of global output at its high-water mark during WWII. Today it has collapsed to just 0.2% of gross tonnage—essentially nonexistent. While China builds well in excess of 1,000 oceangoing ships per year, America makes fewer than five. Sadler has been sounding the alarm about that for years, tying his beloved Navy’s needs to the equally urgent matter of commercial shipbuilding. “We haven’t really done the due diligence, the hard work and commitment of…

Can America Recover From Its Shipbuilding Crisis?

Guided-missile cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66), the German navy frigate FGS Hamburd (F220), the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), and the Military Sealift Command fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10) during a replenishment-at-sea, Arabian Sea, March 23, 2013. Image courtesy Ryan D. McLearnon/US Navy. (Photo via Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images).

Getty Images

Concerned experts, both civilian and military, have been warning for years about the dangers presented by the shocking decline in US shipbuilding capabilities, particularly in contrast to those of our rising geopolitical adversary, China. This week’s announcement by Secretary of the Navy John Phelan of the cancellation of the Constellation-class frigate-building program only added fuel to the fire.

“After decades of apathy and neglect, there are no easy nor cheap solutions to getting the Navy on course and in time to deter let alone persevere in a war with China,” Captain Brent Sadler (U.S. Navy, Retired), senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told me via instant messaging. “Canceling the frigate program is far from adequate as it does not address the need for more shipbuilding capacity, more firepower in the western Pacific by 2027, and a needed frigate class ship to round out a perilously unbalanced fleet.”

A shipbuilding collapse

The frigate program is just one of many maritime canaries in the coal mine. American shipbuilding delivered nearly 90% of global output at its high-water mark during WWII. Today it has collapsed to just 0.2% of gross tonnage—essentially nonexistent. While China builds well in excess of 1,000 oceangoing ships per year, America makes fewer than five.

Sadler has been sounding the alarm about that for years, tying his beloved Navy’s needs to the equally urgent matter of commercial shipbuilding.

“We haven’t really done the due diligence, the hard work and commitment of resources to keep and maintain the Navy that we need,” he said during his recent appearance on my Manufacturing Talks web show and podcast. “And we’ve been for too long getting by on the backs of our sailors, many times—extra work, extra maintenance, extra everything on their backs. And this whole thing, the whole system, is starting to break.”

Sadler dove into the dire numbers for the Navy in a recent article for the U.S. Naval Institute. “Today, the U.S. fleet numbers 296 battle force ships, but it should have been at 321 to stay on pace with earlier plans to reach 355 ships by 2034. That 355-ship goal was based on a 2016 force structure assessment and has since been codified into law by Congress. What is most remarkable about the assessment is that, originally, the fleet need in 2016 was 459 ships and that was only lowered to 355 for fiscal reasons.”

However, he argued on my program that even the 2016 goal was far short of what’s really needed. “We know that we’re going to need more ships,” he said. “There’s no way around it for the size of the threat from China, and then add in the Russians moving around the world, and then understanding where, politically, the Navy is going to be called on to act, without putting at risk that deterring the Chinese, you’re going to need about 575 ships.”

Desperate needs

In a separate paper for Heritage earlier this year, Sadler laid out the details of how America can get from here to there, centered around legislation such as the SHIPS for America Act of 2025, and including such essentials as:

  • Funding American shipbuilding (with a goal of 1,120-1,300 large U.S. commercial vessels vs. 187 today)
  • Incentivizing American maritime investment for ports and shipping
  • Developing the shipyard worker, merchant mariner and naval architect workforce of the future
  • Deregulation and creation of maritime investment zones

Sadler also sees a big role for our nation’s allies.

“We’re going to have to leverage our overseas partners, our allies—Japan, South Korea—trusted, signed defense-treaty partners with a lot of common national interest,” he said. “That’s important, and they’re making strategic investments here to do that, but they’ve got ships. So do the Greeks in LNG.”

Good news in American shipbuilding is currently scant. But there are green shoots to build from toward Sadler’s goals. One important question to answer is where investment can go where we can move quickly to fulfill the country’s needs.

Port opportunities

Wind turbine parts are loaded onto a cargo ship at the Port of Brownsville in Brownsville, Texas, US, on Friday, Feb. 7, 2025.

© 2025 Bloomberg Finance LP

The Port of Brownsville, Texas, offers a good example here. In addition to residing in a widely recognized business- and development-friendly state, the publicly owned port—despite dating back to 1937 as a WPA Depression-recovery project—is essentially a greenfield for developing what Sadler laid out.

“There’s tremendous value in a port like the Port of Brownsville,” I heard from William Dietrich, port director, in an interview. “We’ve got a 17-1/2 mile-long channel with a lot of green space for a company to come in and, for example, we’re talking about shipbuilding. It’s perfect.”

The port, right near the border of Mexico on the Gulf of America, is already home to companies such as All Star Metals, International Shipbreaking Ltd./EMR and SteelCoast, but has ample room for growth.

“The Port of Brownsville is the largest land-owning port in the United States,” Dietrich explained. ”We have 40,000 acres. Now, not all of it is buildable right now—it would take wetland mitigation and all that. But nevertheless, the land is there… We are already working on an MOU with a company that will start including our wetland mitigation as companies start coming in, so we’ll be able to front load that into projects into the future.”

Dietrich also sees the same urgency that Sadler called out. “We have to realize that right now, I believe, statistically, 60% of all vessels that are out in the ocean are Chinese,” he said. “If we don’t start working on this right now, by 2035, 80% of all commercial vessels are going to be Chinese vessels. You know, with that in mind, we’re going to have to ramp up this manufacturing and hybrid it in a way so that we can have long term sustainability, but it has to be done at the same speed that we did during WWII.”

Allied help

A worker welds in the section assembly area at the Hanwha Philly Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, on Wednesday, July 16, 2025. Photographer: Hannah Beier/Bloomberg

© 2025 Bloomberg Finance LP

Another big positive is the existence of just the kind of partnership Sadler called for with our allied nations. Hanwha Philly Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is an excellent example. The former Philly Shipyard Inc., on part of the site of the Philadephia Navy Shipyard, it was acquired by South Korea’s Hanwha Group last year for $100 million.

“We’re looking to grow the existing business,” David Kim, the company’s CEO, told me in an interview. “We’re starting at one and a half ships per year and are aiming to grow that to 20 ships per year.”

One huge advantage, beyond simply keeping the domestic operation viable, that Hanwha brings to the table is workforce development. “We’re bringing tech and expertise from Korea to train and educate the people here,” Kim explained. “That includes bringing experts from Korea here as instructors. We want to create and grow U.S. jobs. We can also provide development opportunities—for example, rotating people from here to Korea for advanced training.”

Kim doesn’t see the development piece as a one-way street, however. “We want to bring U.S. strength to South Korea,” he said. “AI is a good example, where we can come up with even better solutions and use our U.S. site as a test bed.”

The modernization Sadler called for is a key element of the partnership. “We’re expanding the manufacturing capacity here as well as the jobs,” Kim explained. “We’ll modernize our U.S. capabilities. The U.S. has the need, and Hanwha is helping to fulfill it.”

These green shoots are vital, because the need is tremendous, if not downright frightening.

“Nothing that they do today or tomorrow is going to change the fact that the Navy is reducing in size of ships,” said Sadler. “It’s unavoidable at this stage. To its nadir, its lowest point before things start to turn around, of about 282, 280 ships by January of 2027… So we’re waving our weaknesses like red bloody meat in front of a very hungry lion.”

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2025/11/28/can-america-recover-from-its-shipbuilding-crisis/

Market Opportunity
Manchester City Fan Logo
Manchester City Fan Price(CITY)
$0,6116
$0,6116$0,6116
+%1,79
USD
Manchester City Fan (CITY) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Republic Europe Offers Indirect Kraken Stake via SPV

Republic Europe Offers Indirect Kraken Stake via SPV

Republic Europe launches SPV for European retail access to Kraken equity pre-IPO.
Share
bitcoininfonews2026/01/30 13:32
cpwrt Limited Positions Customer Support as a Strategic Growth Function

cpwrt Limited Positions Customer Support as a Strategic Growth Function

For many growing businesses, customer support is often viewed as a cost center rather than a strategic function. cpwrt limited challenges this perception by providing
Share
Techbullion2026/01/30 13:07
Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders

BitcoinWorld Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders The dynamic world of decentralized finance (DeFi) is constantly evolving, bringing forth new opportunities and innovations. A significant development is currently unfolding at Curve Finance, a leading decentralized exchange (DEX). Its founder, Michael Egorov, has put forth an exciting proposal designed to offer a more direct path for token holders to earn revenue. This initiative, centered around a new Curve Finance revenue sharing model, aims to bolster the value for those actively participating in the protocol’s governance. What is the “Yield Basis” Proposal and How Does it Work? At the core of this forward-thinking initiative is a new protocol dubbed Yield Basis. Michael Egorov introduced this concept on the CurveDAO governance forum, outlining a mechanism to distribute sustainable profits directly to CRV holders. Specifically, it targets those who stake their CRV tokens to gain veCRV, which are essential for governance participation within the Curve ecosystem. Let’s break down the initial steps of this innovative proposal: crvUSD Issuance: Before the Yield Basis protocol goes live, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued. Strategic Fund Allocation: The funds generated from the sale of these crvUSD tokens will be strategically deployed into three distinct Bitcoin-based liquidity pools: WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC. Pool Capping: To ensure balanced risk and diversified exposure, each of these pools will be capped at $10 million. This carefully designed structure aims to establish a robust and consistent income stream, forming the bedrock of a sustainable Curve Finance revenue sharing mechanism. Why is This Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Significant for CRV Holders? This proposal marks a pivotal moment for CRV holders, particularly those dedicated to the long-term health and governance of Curve Finance. Historically, generating revenue for token holders in the DeFi space can often be complex. The Yield Basis proposal simplifies this by offering a more direct and transparent pathway to earnings. By staking CRV for veCRV, holders are not merely engaging in governance; they are now directly positioned to benefit from the protocol’s overall success. The significance of this development is multifaceted: Direct Profit Distribution: veCRV holders are set to receive a substantial share of the profits generated by the Yield Basis protocol. Incentivized Governance: This direct financial incentive encourages more users to stake their CRV, which in turn strengthens the protocol’s decentralized governance structure. Enhanced Value Proposition: The promise of sustainable revenue sharing could significantly boost the inherent value of holding and staking CRV tokens. Ultimately, this move underscores Curve Finance’s dedication to rewarding its committed community and ensuring the long-term vitality of its ecosystem through effective Curve Finance revenue sharing. Understanding the Mechanics: Profit Distribution and Ecosystem Support The distribution model for Yield Basis has been thoughtfully crafted to strike a balance between rewarding veCRV holders and supporting the wider Curve ecosystem. Under the terms of the proposal, a substantial portion of the value generated by Yield Basis will flow back to those who contribute to the protocol’s governance. Returns for veCRV Holders: A significant share, specifically between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis, will be distributed to veCRV holders. This flexible range allows for dynamic adjustments based on market conditions and the protocol’s performance. Ecosystem Reserve: Crucially, 25% of the Yield Basis tokens will be reserved exclusively for the Curve ecosystem. This allocation can be utilized for various strategic purposes, such as funding ongoing development, issuing grants, or further incentivizing liquidity providers. This ensures the continuous growth and innovation of the platform. The proposal is currently undergoing a democratic vote on the CurveDAO governance forum, giving the community a direct voice in shaping the future of Curve Finance revenue sharing. The voting period is scheduled to conclude on September 24th. What’s Next for Curve Finance and CRV Holders? The proposed Yield Basis protocol represents a pioneering approach to sustainable revenue generation and community incentivization within the DeFi landscape. If approved by the community, this Curve Finance revenue sharing model has the potential to establish a new benchmark for how decentralized exchanges reward their most dedicated participants. It aims to foster a more robust and engaged community by directly linking governance participation with tangible financial benefits. This strategic move by Michael Egorov and the Curve Finance team highlights a strong commitment to innovation and strengthening the decentralized nature of the protocol. For CRV holders, a thorough understanding of this proposal is crucial for making informed decisions regarding their staking strategies and overall engagement with one of DeFi’s foundational platforms. FAQs about Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Q1: What is the main goal of the Yield Basis proposal? A1: The primary goal is to establish a more direct and sustainable way for CRV token holders who stake their tokens (receiving veCRV) to earn revenue from the Curve Finance protocol. Q2: How will funds be generated for the Yield Basis protocol? A2: Initially, $60 million in crvUSD will be issued and sold. The funds from this sale will then be allocated to three Bitcoin-based pools (WBTC, cbBTC, and tBTC), with each pool capped at $10 million, to generate profits. Q3: Who benefits from the Yield Basis revenue sharing? A3: The proposal states that between 35% and 65% of the value generated by Yield Basis will be returned to veCRV holders, who are CRV stakers participating in governance. Q4: What is the purpose of the 25% reserve for the Curve ecosystem? A4: This 25% reserve of Yield Basis tokens is intended to support the broader Curve ecosystem, potentially funding development, grants, or other initiatives that contribute to the platform’s growth and sustainability. Q5: When is the vote on the Yield Basis proposal? A5: A vote on the proposal is currently underway on the CurveDAO governance forum and is scheduled to run until September 24th. If you found this article insightful and valuable, please consider sharing it with your friends, colleagues, and followers on social media! Your support helps us continue to deliver important DeFi insights and analysis to a wider audience. To learn more about the latest DeFi market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping decentralized finance institutional adoption. This post Unlocking Massive Value: Curve Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal for CRV Holders first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 00:35