The Ship Model Forum

by **Lesforan** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:47 pm

Government-supported monopolies are not a manifestation of free enterprise. I think competitive bids from competing shipyards would still be most cost-effective, especially if some of these shipyards are not domestic and competing in the world shipbuilding market. The only consideration in using foreign shipyards should be security issues of proprietary information.

I would suggest, as an alternative to nationalizing private shipyards, we should consider privatizing government shipyards. During WWII, we had many private shipyards in military production. from Bath in maine to Kaiser in California. Right now, I think our large unit production is limited to Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. Litton builds smaller units in Pascagoula, MS. I'm not sure if there are others active, but many are probably still in private production and could consider military contracts if offered.

Of course, there are notable foreign companies cabable of building large ships. Japan and Finland come to mind immediately. Foreign competition could help keep prices in line. Domestic shipbuilding should not be viewed as a pork-barrel industry, but a world-class industry producing realistic products at realistic prices. As I was fond of saying, "We build stout ships in Mississippi".

by **Rob** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:17 am

Werner wrote:I think if you compare the costs of the French FREMM and the USN LCS 3 & 4, you will arrive at a similar conclusion. There should be no reason why the European ship is so much less expensive ($100,000,000 per ship). The LCS carries no special or unique technologies. In fact, LCS 2 & 4 are based on Australian designs already in the water. Their only unique quality was a high top speed (which the Navy said it has no use for) at the expense of almost all it's mission range (which the Navy says is essential).

Labour costs, costs of raw materials, cost of transport of raw materials rates of taxation levied to the builder will need to be considered etc. Given a strong EUR and a weak USD, have you factored that in? Are these costs based on benchmark exchange rate or allowing for fluctuations in it. Are you allowing for wastage of raw material? The impact of expensive oil currently has less impact in Europe due to a weak dollar, oil being priced in dollars. Therefore cost of transport is less adversely effected than in the USA.

What you are suggesting is that the French ships have been better project-managed but better management on one part is not evidence of corruption on the other.

Maybe not Russia, but why not see if the French can build the US some cheap ships?

Rob

by **Dave Wooley** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:13 am

In the UK there is another path warships have been built and are being built to lease to the MOD navy. All the necessary maintenance is undertaken by the company the RN provide the operational manpower. In effect the MOD does not own these ships. At the end of their tenure they can be sold on or if the ships have been so designed leased or sold to commercial operations. This might sound an anathema, warships being sold into commercial hands but that what is happening. This is a very hard headed commercial undertaking were by the tax payer does indeed get value for money. Gone are the days I remember of "cost plus� and a standard for the admiralty and one for the commercial sector now its nearly all commercial standards, pipe work, generators, refrigeration, valves etc.
Dave Wooley

by **Werner** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:57 am

I think if you compare the costs of the French FREMM and the USN LCS 3 & 4, you will arrive at a similar conclusion. There should be no reason why the European ship is so much less expensive ($100,000,000 per ship). The LCS carries no special or unique technologies. In fact, LCS 2 & 4 are based on Australian designs already in the water. Their only unique quality was a high top speed (which the Navy said it has no use for) at the expense of almost all it's mission range (which the Navy says is essential).

by **Rob** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:23 am

Werner wrote:I merely want the operators to be responsible for construction. They cannot take bribes or misdirect government funds without risking a long prison term. In addition, there is the possibility that those who build the ships might just see an alignment with those who must fight on them.

Asking Russia to build our ships could not be a worse situation than that which confronts us now. San Antonio reminds me of the 19th Century iron monitors that could not float and did not have engines.

The Iowas and 2 of the Forrestal class were built in Navy yards. I do not see how this is such a radical proposal. The whole reason the Navy Yard system was abolished was to benefit big business and big labor at taxpayer's expense.

Can you be more specific about the points you raise over the use of government funds. Can you prove this corruption or is this mere speculation?

Does the infrastructure still exist in Navy yards? The ships you cite were built half a century ago. If not who will pay for it?

If you, personally, worked in the shipbuilding industry, what would your thoughts be on suddenly being conscripted into the military?

Fundamentally, I agree that there is some merit in centralising the production of warhsips, but I think some of the measures you propose are unrealistic.

Rob

by **winstonshu** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:57 am

although i see werner's point, i think that jean-paul brings up a good point. let's not forget the things that the current shipbuilding system HAS done right... like the spruance class, the tico class, and the arleigh burkes. whether or not you actually like the designs of the ships themselves, they were reasonably (reasonably being the key word here) well run programs that produced a good product (that should have served a lot longer than they did, in the case of the spru-cans).

by **Jean-Paul Binot** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:05 pm

If I may add a different perspective to this interesting debate, the French government is finally taking steps to get out of the navy yard procurement system for its main units.

The state-run and military-supervised DCN (Direction des Constructions Navales) was eventually found to add unnecessary cost and delay to the entire ship procurement process. Quality was also an issue, as evidenced by the mishaps of the Charles De Gaulle CVN program. For twenty years or so, the French navy has been procuring ships from civilian yards. For example the very successful Flor�al class frigates were procured from the Chantiers de l'Atlantique � Saint Nazaire, the builders of Queen Mary 2, but now even first line warships are to follow the same path.

Actually, there is a plan to merge DCN with Thales, the Anglo-French defence conglomerate, which would be tantamount to privatising the DCN altogether, a move not well regarded in union and political left circles.

by **Werner** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:50 am

A charming idea to think that America was less corrupt in the 1880s-1910s. Tammany Hall, Teapot Dome, Boss Tweed, Union Busting, interlocking directors, etc.

I think it's fair to say that corruption enjoys a long and noble history in the USA.

by **Guest** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:30 pm

Werner wrote:I merely want the operators to be responsible for construction. They cannot take bribes or misdirect government funds without risking a long prison term. In addition, there is the possibility that those who build the ships might just see an alignment with those who must fight on them.

Asking Russia to build our ships could not be a worse situation than that which confronts us now. San Antonio reminds me of the 19th Century iron monitors that could not float and did not have engines.

The Iowas and 2 of the Forrestal class were built in Navy yards. I do not see how this is such a radical proposal. The whole reason the Navy Yard system was abolished was to benefit big business and big labor at taxpayer's expense.

If you actually staff the navy yard with uniformed navy personal under military discipline, then that's fine. But I think you will have a hard time finding recruits.

In that civilian staffed navy yards did better back then than what is to be found at civilian yards now, that I think is mainly attributable to the generally cleaner procurement process, less influenced by the unhealthy curruptive power of the military industrial complex, that existed back then. I don't think the government yards on the whole did better than the civilian yards at the time.

by **Werner** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:46 pm

I merely want the operators to be responsible for construction. They cannot take bribes or misdirect government funds without risking a long prison term. In addition, there is the possibility that those who build the ships might just see an alignment with those who must fight on them.

Asking Russia to build our ships could not be a worse situation than that which confronts us now. San Antonio reminds me of the 19th Century iron monitors that could not float and did not have engines.

The Iowas and 2 of the Forrestal class were built in Navy yards. I do not see how this is such a radical proposal. The whole reason the Navy Yard system was abolished was to benefit big business and big labor at taxpayer's expense.

by **Guest** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:27 pm

Werner wrote:USS San Antonio LPD 17 was launched in 2003 and commissioned 14 January 2006 at a cost of $1,850,000,000.00 (most emphatically not the mere $815 million seen in some documents). It's interesting that the Navy cut the buy from the 12+ ships (scheduled to replace 41 existing ships), to 8 or 9, and yet the program cost was unchanged (a phenomena seen in the F-22 program).

As of 22 June 2007, the ship still languished in the yard's hands. The Secretary of the Navy said categorically the ship "is not mission capable", 23 months after delivery. Problems range from leaks to steerage issues. It is possible the entire class is a costly failure. Northrup Grumman's punishment for it's failures is to be handed $23+ billion to develop DDG-1000.

Immediately after delivery the ship went to Newport News for $6,000,000 in emergency repairs. Now there are uncounted millions in additional expense to repair a ship that has yet to operate one day as a combat unit.

How is this an effective and efficient use of US tax dollars? What can we expect from future expenditures? How would my alternative provide a worse outcome than this?

What agents precisely is it that you think is causing this? Surely not merely the broad and non-specific "private ownership". How do you see the change in ownership addressing this issue?

I think the 3 agents that cause this is:

1. The process from selection to delivery is non-transparency

2. The selection and production process is not open to true, serious, and clean competition

3. The supplier has little or no technological and organization synergistic relationship with an more powerful commercially competitive arm in the supplier organization.

How do you see a transfer to government ownership addressing these agents of corruption?

by **Werner** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:19 pm

USS San Antonio LPD 17 was launched in 2003 and commissioned 14 January 2006 at a cost of $1,850,000,000.00 (most emphatically not the mere $815 million seen in some documents). It's interesting that the Navy cut the buy from the 12+ ships (scheduled to replace 41 existing ships), to 8 or 9, and yet the program cost was unchanged (a phenomena seen in the F-22 program).

As of 22 June 2007, the ship still languished in the yard's hands. The Secretary of the Navy said categorically the ship "is not mission capable", 23 months after delivery. Problems range from leaks to steerage issues. It is possible the entire class is a costly failure. Northrup Grumman's punishment for it's failures is to be handed $23+ billion to develop DDG-1000.

Immediately after delivery the ship went to Newport News for $6,000,000 in emergency repairs. Now there are uncounted millions in additional expense to repair a ship that has yet to operate one day as a combat unit.

How is this an effective and efficient use of US tax dollars? What can we expect from future expenditures? How would my alternative provide a worse outcome than this?

by **Guest** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:19 pm

Werner wrote:Although my proposal seems counter to logic (even to me), I think we have exhausted the possibilities with the current scheme. It is thoroughly corrupt and broken, and I don't know how to fix it. What remains is to throw it out. I believe the USN did this once before, at the beginning of the "New Navy" era.

It is the price one pays when an entire industrial chain is secretive, has zero commercial value, and profits entirely by its ability to suck blood from tax payers. Such industry can be expected to see much more return in improving its ability to engender corruption than in improving its efficiency in doing what it claims to do for a living.

That fundamental fact about the industry will not be changed regardless of whether the Government owns the ship builders. It could only change if the government not only own the entire supply chain from beginning to the end, but also completely abolish the secrecy that surrounds it. Neither of which is feasible, so the idea is a dead end.

by **Werner** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:07 pm

Although my proposal seems counter to logic (even to me), I think we have exhausted the possibilities with the current scheme. It is thoroughly corrupt and broken, and I don't know how to fix it. What remains is to throw it out. I believe the USN did this once before, at the beginning of the "New Navy" era.

by **Mark Petersen** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:47 am

One of the yards* in Sturgeon Bay, WI did a lot of work for the Navy on smaller classes of ships such as Mine Sweepers their having to fit through the St Lawernce Seaway. Eventually they refused to do any more work for the Navy as the specs kept getting changed during construction. Issue the requirement for the ship class as to speed, range, seakeeping ability, armament, sensors suite and crew requirements as to size, berthing etc. And keep to those specs. Don't change horses in the middle of the damn stream.

*IIRC it was Petersen Brothers (no relation). I'm pretty sure they are out of the ship building business as the last time I was in Door County I saw ads for a Petersen condo development

by **Werner** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:51 pm

America has no native criminal class, apart from Congress. ~ Mark Twain

by **winstonshu** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:49 pm

although feinstein's case is pretty atrocious too, this is the one i'm referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world ... actor.html

by **Werner** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:46 pm

winstonshu wrote: isn't there a case ongoing about a serving army officer in kuwait and his wife who accepted a crapton of bribes for favoritism in awarding contracts?

I think you're referring to Senator Diane Feinstein.

Wikipedia wrote:Between 2001 and 2006, Diane Feinstein served as the ranking member of the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, also known as the "MILCON" subcommittee. Feinstein also served as chair of the MILCON subcommittee when the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002.

While on the MILCON subcommitte, Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions of dollars to firms owned by her husband, Richard C. Blum. This included millions of dollars in contracts awarded to Blum's Perini Corporation to provide goods and services in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Imagine yourself a crook. Now, imagine yourself a Congressman. But I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain

by **winstonshu** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:38 pm

although i agree that there are major problems with the shipbuilding process today, i think that it would be a mistake to assume that a military bureacracy (which, let's not kid ourselves, is what this proposal would evolve into) would be any less susceptible to corruption would be a mistake.

isn't there a case ongoing about a serving army officer in kuwait and his wife who accepted a crapton of bribes for favoritism in awarding contracts?

there needs to be a fix, no doubt, but i doubt that this is the answer.

by **Guest** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:34 pm

Lesforan wrote:
We may as well just order the ships from the Chinese (after they figure out how to build carriers).

They will coat them with GHB and paint them with lead paint.

The Ship Model Forum

Shipbuilding proposal

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Shipbuilding proposal

Shipbuilding

Re: What the heck?