Hacker News Reader

Possibly, but this is very expensive.

I also remember when the Scottish government tried to support Scottish shipbuilding by contracting the construction of some ferries to the single local bidder, Ferguson Marine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_ferry_fiasco

Garden shed industry gets you garden shed solutions. See the previous discussion about Ukranian cheap drones with limited effectiveness. It takes globalization to build an iPhone, and the larger your defence consortium the more advanced a solution you can build.

The ferry fiasco (which I am impacted by), is the classic case of government overreach and too much bureaucracy.

In a war or pre-war scenario the fat would be trimmed and we would be come lean and mean, as there is no room for major failures.

> we would be come lean and mean, as there is no room for major failures

This is magical thinking. The bureaucracy doesn’t get more efficient for no reason. Usually it involves something like war time powers, and that means the rest of the economy gets strangled to support the building of weapons.

It's probably not possible anymore. One problem in the US, and presumably the UK and other first-world countries, we've lost not only the ability to make things, but we've lost the ability to make things used to make things. For instance, we need machine shops that no longer exist (with machinists that no longer exist, with training programs that no longer exist) to make machines used to build more complicated parts. We've been outsourcing it to China because it was cheaper and now they have all that expertise (despite the shabbiness of some Chinese products, some of their products are absolutely not-at-all shabby).

We did this to ourselves and some people got very rich doing so and it's in their best interests that this remains the case. These same people may claim to want to bring this expertise back home, but really, they want to bring it back, but continue to make even bigger profits. Politicians cry about it on the evening news, but they just want to make campaign promises that will be thrown out as soon as a political donation is made. Workers want it, but without training by people who don't exist, its not possible.

We are screwed, we did it to ourselves, and there's no unscrewing it anymore.

There's no unscrewing it quickly. If we could execute a decades-long plan (we can barely execute a quarter-long plan so that seems unlikely) the information needed exists, it's "just" a matter of having people learning how to implement it again & building the needed equipment. And that's largely an economic problem, and thus politically infeasible. But the skills were invented by people who didn't have training from others in how to do those skills, it's not inherently impossible to re-develop them, especially since there's documentation on a lot of the skills. It's just difficult, slow, and expensive.

We are screwed, we did it to ourselves, and we're not willing to pay the cost to unscrew it.

It would be nice if the maker movement could have more impact. While it is an interesting avocation (and sometimes much more), it is not widespread enough to have a major impact. Also, it is not exactly a low-cost sort of thing (I guess it could be, I just haven't seen those examples yet).

This is simply not true. Did you walk any US, UK and other first-world countries factories? A lot of them have separate machinist shops with tens or hundreds of machinists who can make pretty much anything given materials and time. Even every other small factory has a machinist shop where all kinds of things are made including whole machines, parts, improvements for existing machines, etc. In my small town there are two small modern machinist shops that can make anything you want. Look around and see if there are any factories or small shops and ask if you can take a look. You would be amazed by locally made high tech you see and what can be done.

I'm not really sure when and where the "we've lost the ability to make things" came from?

I agree that other countries caught up though.

We haven't completely lost the ability to make things that make things and yes, there are machine shops in factories across the US. But how many of those machine shops have the equipment and expertise to completely produce the machines necessary to make a, for example, car, from carburetor to computer chips, without going outside the US. An increasingly large number of foundational products are being made in other countries and shipped here for assembly (and even that is being outsourced now).

Note: I should mention that I'm actually mostly OK with this - I don't have a huge issue with globalism. What I do have an issue with is people who claim this is a horrible, horrible situation while these same people are the ones who put us in this condition and continue to profit from it, without attempting to actually fix it, and expecting someone else to step up and fix it.

Indeed - the UK needs to rely more on home grown solutions. No harm in using foreign components/expertise to make progress, but we have to constantly strive to achieve self-reliance. This may never happen, but the trajectory needs be in that direction.

I think the word "selfish" here is doing a disservice to your argument. Nothing selfish about trying to achieve self-reliance. It annoys that even a lot of seemingly simple software used in the NHS relies on American SaaS companies.

“Self reliance” in military terms is overrated because it means redundancy which increases costs and sourcing everything domestically means missing out on comparative advantage of different countries). The UK doesn’t have nearly enough colonies to source materials anymore.

The US already created 3 variants of a 6th gen fighter available to all of NATO and some other countries. AFAIK, the UK hasn’t even built a 4th generation fighter, something EuroFighter, Dassault, and Saab have done (in Europe) and the US has done 4 times over (later variants of F-15, F-16, F-18, and all F-22s).

Agreed - all I'm saying is we have to keep trying. There are benefits in just trying to achieve an almost impossible goal.

Citation needed.

In a world of scarce resources, how you choose to invest is incredibly important.

The tradeoffs depend a lot on how reliable the external dependencies are. Sourcing from Europe seems pretty low risk high reward for the foreseeable future. Relying on the US seemed really safe 10+ years ago but is much less so currently. If I were any non-US country right now I wouldn't want to find myself in a war critically reliant on US resources.

France has its own independent military production including jet fighters (Rafale), tanks, ballistic missile, nuclear submarines and nuclear heads.

> We really need to up our defence game by not requiring collaboration with other countries or companies.

That would require reindustrialising, which while possible would require a complete reorganisation of UK society and accepting a much lower financial standard (financially, at least) of living as the workforce moves to manual labour from services.

> The UK has a lot of pioneering knowledge and continues to make breakthroughs but it would be better if we could be a bit more selfish and make our own stuff with our own supply chain.

This is just exceptionalist nonsense. The UK has neither the industrial expertise nor experience to rearm domestically.

> This is just exceptionalist nonsense. The UK has neither the industrial expertise nor experience to rearm domestically.

No, you are writing nonsense -

Here is a non-exhaustive list of modern (80s - current era breakthroughs which are British)

- Chohbam composite tank armour (the best in the world)

- Dragonfire Laser

- Rapier AA missile, now being replaced by SkySabre

- Accuracy International firearms (best sniper rifles in the world)

- Rolls Royce jet engines

- Naval Sonar and Radar systems

I could go on

> Chohbam composite tank armour

Chobham is from the '60s, but the UK cannot manufacture Chobham or the current incarnation Epsom independently.

> Dragonfire Laser

Developed by MBDA UK (a subsidiary of MBDA, owned by Airbus, BAE, and Leonardo) and QinetiQ. It also cannot be manufactured independently by the UK.

> SkySabre

MBDA again, also cannot be manufactured independently by the UK.

> Accuracy International firearms (best sniper rifles in the world)

Cannot be manufactured independently by the UK. Not even the barrels nor the steel to produce them, both of which are imported.

> Rolls Royce jet engines

Cannot be manufactured independently by the UK, which does not even manufacture most of the parts in the UK.

> I could go on

You could, and you'd continue to prove my point. The UK can partly design and manage projects (the services sector) and can assemble some items from parts mostly imported and almost exclusively using overseas inputs.

I think it's also telling that majority of all the items mentioned armour, from composite armour to Trent turbofans are already manufactured overseas and outside the UK

and that is wrong morally/politically/national pride; we should re-industrialize and pronto.

China, Russia (gotten lean and mean from Ukraine war) are going to outpace us.

You seem to be "ok" with this, but I think that is apathy and must be corrected for our national standing, otherwise we will be laughed at and outcompeted.

What good is designing a processor if we can make the silicon itself?

> You seem to be "ok" with this, but I think that is apathy and must be corrected for our national standing, otherwise we will be laughed at and outcompeted.

I actually welcome the United Kingdom’s growing economic dependence on its neighbours and other countries. Greater interdependence can hopefully moderate HM Government’s belligerence:

* Lowering the appetite for more illegal expeditionary wars and the untold civilian cost that comes with them,

* Curbing military and diplomatic support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza,

* Leaving UK-controlled territories such as the Chagos Islands, overseas military bases, and Northern Ireland, all of which suffer endless human rights abuses under HM Government,

* Curbing arms sales to authoritarian regimes with dire human rights records, like Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, Egypt, and of course, itself.

Ordinary British citizens would also benefit. Fewer taxes and human lives spent on foreign interventions and more resources directed to neglected communities at home.

> That would require reindustrialising, which while possible would require a complete reorganisation of UK society and accepting a much lower financial standard (financially, at least) of living as the workforce moves to manual labour from services.

Not sure that holds up:

- Manufacturing: £785/week average earnings (Apr 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...

- Services: £708/week average earnings (Apr 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...

This is the 21st century — people aren’t running around soot-covered factories anymore.

Modern industry is about designing, building, and maintaining complex hardware and software systems, often with a big dose of automation.

It’s more likely you’re managing robots than shoveling coal.

In fact UK car companies WERE soot covered factories (eg Jaguar and Land Rover) as recently as the 1990s (when Ford bought them and completely upgraded their production lines).

The UK going alone on military equipment:

  - loses out on comparative advantages
  - needs to make redundant capital outlays
  - loses allied buffer countries
  - can’t maintain their own nuclear weapons (the uranium wasn’t sourced from Wales, ya know…)
  - needs to spend MUCH more than the average NATO member country (military spending as a percentage of GDP)
  - it’s not like the UK government budgets are overflowing with surplus to spend.

> Just an example - the Spitfire was wholly made in the UK in the 1940s with 200 companies subcontracted from big cities to small towns across the country.

Not the best example given the UK was a manufacturing powerhouse back then. We can't even build railways anymore. Even a lot of key infrastructure is contracted out to companies in other countries these days.

> but none of these companies can produce a whole weapon/plane/tank by themselves, without needing another 100 companies to supply components around the world.

This is true of anything that is sufficiently complicated. Apple designs products, but doesn’t manufacture most of the parts directly. They contract with specialized suppliers.

The Spitfire was created not long after the peak of British power. There has been A LOT of austerity since. The country can’t afford to increase military expenditure enough to onshore all weapons development, especially because (1) they aren’t at war and (2) the Spitfire was only as complicated as a car in the 1970s. A 5th generation fighter (like the F-35) or a 4.5th generation fighter (feature parity with several US and Euro fighters) would be 10x-50x more complexity. There is nothing gained by spending the extra money.

The F-35 cannot be made without the UK. There are key components which are only produced in the UK and for which there is no secondary supplier.

Even countries happy to spend huge proportions of GDP on weapons, like Israel, cannot build a modern fighter in house.

The solution for the UK is European integration which potentially brings the money, skills and manpower to build a better plane than exists anywhere including the US.

> we could be a bit more selfish

Brexit wasn't enough for you?

Nothing wrong with a bit of national selfishness. We are too globalised now.

Just look at how Macron is behaving right now trying to promote D'Assault Aerospace over his European counterparts.

Do you write tightly coupled code?

> Do you write tightly coupled code?

I try not to, but I also try to avoid NIH.

That's a low-effort jab.

But it’s apt.

You don’t cut off the umbilical cord until after taking breaths on your own. Get the order wrong, and you risk suffocating yourself before you figure out how to breathe.

Anyone making the “cut the umbilical” argument needs to prove to all of the listeners that you know what NATO provides your military before you sever interoperability with NATO.

The core problem with the UK is they chose not to run US-sized super carriers. UK only has shorter carriers which have ramps instead of catapults. UK carrier-based aircraft need VTOL to carry a decent payload/fuel load, which means the US Navy variant of the F-35 (requires a catapult) is not a candidate, only the US Marines variant (has VTOL drivetrain). This isn’t a sufficient reason to either leave NATO or source all military weapons domestically (which they can’t currently do).

It's not the size of the carriers - it's the lack of catapults that are the problem.

I mentioned the lack of catapults. But it’s both. Either a longer runway OR a catapult would support a heavier load.

Instead, UK carriers depend on VTOL aircraft, which reduces the selection of fixed wing to select from.