Current US Naval Shipbuilders

Currently, there are nine separate shipyards around the United States building fourteen new classes of US Naval and US Coast Guard vessels. This does not include various ships being built for the Military Sealift Command (which are officially called US Naval Ship (USNS) and not United States Ship (USS)) or the numerous vessels being built for the US Army.

Most people are not aware that the US Army operates over 200 vessels of its own, including many types of landing craft and ships, and large ocean going military lift vessels.

Here are the locations and names of those nine shipyards around the United States working on the fourteen classes of new vessels:


Now, there are literally scores, if not several hundred other shipyards along the Atlantic Coast, along the Gulf Coast, around the Great Lakes, and on the West Coast that are capable of building naval vessels. They just are not contracted to do so for the US Navy or the US Coast Guard right now.

There are numerous yards that are certified to do repairs on US Navy and US Coast Guard vessels as well, which are not included here.

The specific yards and the specific classes of vessels that they are working on are shown below:


Three yards, Newport News, VA, Austral, Mobile AL, and Ingalls Pascagoula, MS, are working on three classes of vessel each. Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME is working on two classes of vessel. These four yards account for 10 of the 14 classes being built right now. The other five yards add the other three classes being built.

The US Navy is not significantly growing its fleet, because most of the vessels being built replace other vessels that are then decommissioned. However, there is a robust ship building effort going on in the United States to bring into service new, more modern vessels, which this post illustrates.

One of the shipbuilders that many are not familiar with that is shown here is NASSCO, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company in San Diego. They are building the three new (and now a fourth is being considered) Montford Point Class Mobile Lift Platforms. A new, 34,500 ton type of Amphibious Assault ship.

Recently NASSCO completed the T-AKE Lewis and Clarke class of fourteen large dry cargo/ammunition supply vessels that help supply carrier task forces, ARGs and other US Navy task groups.

They too are very large vessels, displacing 45,000 tons, 700 ft long with a 106 foot beam and a 30 foot draft.

Those 14 large vessels were all commissioned between June 2006 and Ocotber 2012, in just over six years.

Here's them building the T-AKE 13, USNS Medgar Evans which was commissioned in April 2012.


Large, vessels, and one of the most cost effective, on time, on budget major build programs in recent history.

A geographical point, 4 navals shipyards are near the mouth of the Mississipi and only one on the West coast.

FORBIN said:

A geographical point, 4 navals shipyards are near the mouth of the Mississipi and only one on the West coast.

Click to expand...

It makes sense from cost point of view. The wages in those 3 states are the lowest in the country and are right to work states.

The question i have is if there are that many shipyards that are capable of handling such sophisticated orders, what do they exactly do when they don't get orders? The American shipbuilding industry isn't exactly getting a large share of the LNG, VLCC, large containerships or cruise ships. It seems to me that their work force will decline in skill level if they don't work on these large ships.

Because of the size of the USN a good number of these builders are kept busy not just with builds but also rebuilds of those very ships as well as repairs to Commercial shipping. Since the USN is in a consent state of replacement and refit work is always going on. Think of it like a Highway. you start building a highway today and finish it ten years from now take a day to celebrate and then start back at the first spot repairing all the damage form ten years of wear. Additionally you have some special builds for example MS Pride of America was built by Ingalls Shipbuilding it's not common but it happens from time to time. Marinette Marine Corporation builds cutters along side LCS, Ferries, and research ships. All do R&D

FORBIN said:

A geographical point, 4 navals shipyards are near the mouth of the Mississipi and only one on the West coast.

Click to expand...

Well, that is true for the ones building current new classes for the Navy and Coast Guard. There are many, many other yards all along all of those coasts who are capable of building naval vessels now and who have done so in the past.

These are just the ones with the current contracts.

There are other yards building current Military Sealift Command and US Army vessels.

delft said:

Marinette, Wisconsin is not on any of those three coasts.

Click to expand...

This is true, delft, well said.

But that does not change the fact that when I said that the US Naval Shipbuilding is going on on all three of the coasts (Altlantic, Gulf, and Pacific) it is also true.

It just measn we have to add a foruth category for the Great Lakes, which I am happy to also do, and actually show on the map at the start of this thread.

The fact is, there are hundreds of yards around the US, from the Northwest Pacific to the Southwest Pacific. All along the Gulf Coast, all along the Atlantic Coast, and around the Great Lakes, who are capable of building US Naval vessels, small and large. Right now there are at least ten yards actively doing so, and if the US faced a crunch, that could be expanded 10 fold very quickly.

That was my point in the other discussion. This is a long standing, deeply entrenched capability in the United States. The US does not have to even think about building it from the ground up as the one poster suggested...it's already there and very capable.

Jeff Head said:

This is true, delft, well said.

But that does not change the fact that when I said that the US Naval Shipbuilding is going on on all three of the coasts (Altlantic, Gulf, and Pacific) it is also true.

It just measn we have to add a foruth category for the Great Lakes, which I am happy to also do, and actually show on the map at the start of this thread.

The fact is, there are hundreds of yards around the US, from the Northwest Pacific to the Southwest Pacific. All along the Gulf Coast, all along the Atlantic Coast, and around the Great Lakes, who are capable of building US Naval vessels, small and large. Right now there are at least ten yards actively doing so, and if the US faced a crunch, that could be expanded 10 fold very quickly.

That was my point in the other discussion. This is a long standing, deeply entrenched capability in the United States. The US does not have to even think about building it from the ground up as the one poster suggested...it's already there and very capable.

Click to expand...

US DOT maritime administration define the ocean going ship building capacity having at least on position able to handle construction of major naval or merchant ship over 400 feet long.

2003 DOT MARAD Survey of US Shipbuilding and Repair facilities found the US had 9 yards with active ocean going ship Building capacity, 15 yards had at least one 400 foot position, but is no longer active in ship building.

DOT MarAd reports that in 2012, US ship building industry delivered 1260 vessels of all kinds. But vast majority of these (80%) are unpowered inland tank and deck barges, almost all the rest consisted of fishing vessels, ferries, Tugs, or offshore service vessels. Only 11 were ocean going ships, of which 8 were warships.

The total number of ocean going ships built by the US for the two preceding years were 12 and 11.

According to MArAd 2003 survey, the US has a total of 80 existent ocean going ship building positions 400 feet or longer, and 48 docks able to handle hull repairs on ocean going ships 400 feet or longer in 2003. Annual delivery rate of 11 implies 11-22 of the ship building positions are active, depending on the complexity and pace of construction. Even if all existent ship building positions were activated and turned to building ocean going ships and fully utilized, the total US annual ocean going ship construction capacity would be between 40 - 80.

By comparison, The top ship building country in the world in 2012 actually delivered over 1000 ocean going ships In that year.

US Ship building capacity does not seem to be too entrenched or too deep by international standards. The capacity for ten fold increase In output is not there. The capability, including skill and experienced workforce, does not appear to be there either. A tenfold increase certain seem to demand heavy investment. What is more even such a tenfold increase would still only bring the US up to 10% of the existent capabilities of leading ship builders in the world.

chuck731 said:

US DOT maritime administration define the ocean going ship building capacity having at least on position able to handle construction of major naval or merchant ship over 400 feet long.

2003 DOT MARAD Survey of US Shipbuilding and Repair facilities found the US had 9 yards with active ocean going ship Building capacity, 15 yards had at least one 400 foot position, but is no longer active in ship building. US Ship building capacity does not seem to be too entrenched or too deep by international standards. The capacity for ten fold increase In output is not there. The capability, including skill and experienced workforce, does not appear to be there either. A tenfold increase certain seem to demand heavy investment.

Click to expand...

1st of all, the report you are referring to is one that takes merchant and commercial shipping into account as I understand it, and not military ship building.

Second, in either case, there are literally hundreds of yards around America. It is very well entrenched, whether you think it "seems" that way or not.

You may not want to believe it, and you may pull whatever numbers you want out of a study that sets a specific metric, but the ability to convert/build yards and add the capacity to do whatever needed to be done in a crisis is there. The work force and the skill an dexperience are also there.

We're not just talking about the major yards here that add to that experince level, we're talking about the smaller ones as well. There are plenty of people who know what they are about who in the event of such a crisis would be called upon and would be able to respond immediately. Particularly with modular construction technigques.

Anyhow, the US has three (and if you include the Great Lakes as delft said) four, very long coast lines where all sorts of ship building, ship maintenance, and handling takes place every year...year in and year out. It is a very deep tradition, it is a very well understood industry, and there is a lot of it. There is plenty of space and know how to fuel a rapid rise in capacity if necessary. The paper you refer to in no way addresses or reflects any of that, that is why you must say things like "it seems," that the capability is not there. But you are wrong on that score, even if the current number of yeards with the 400+ ft. capability is limited right now.

If new yards were needed, they would be built, and they would be manned by the experienced people who are currently working in other areas and other yards that do not happen to meet the metric MArAD is applying in this particular study.

The US is not doing this right now because it does not need to, not because it cannot do so. If it had to do so, it has the experience, the personnel, and the space to do so. Putting in a 400 ft or longer yard is not the issue. That building can occur rapidly. If an urgent need arose, within a few short months, you would see it transpire.

No, Jeff. The survey takes into account all ship building facilities in the us, including naval yards. The figure of 11 ocean going ships produced in 2012 include each of the 8 ocean going naval vessels built in that year.

If you are going to answer professional metrics with bare assertions, and deem yards that make inland waterway barges, tugs, ferries and offshore supply vessels easily convertible to construction of real blue water warships, then we have to agree to totally disagree.