There is a large segment of naval observers and commentators
who believe that all of our shipbuilding woes could be solved by contracting
our construction to foreign shipyards.
The claim, with almost no supporting evidence, is that foreign builders
build ships faster, better, and cheaper.
ComNavOps has refuted that belief, repeatedly, and pointed out that when
all the ‘tricks’ of production and accounting are considered, foreign ships are
not cheaper, have similar quality issues, and are not more likely to be on
time. The Belgian-Dutch new mine
countermeasures ship program (see, “Dutch-Belgian MCMMothership”) provides yet another example.
The delay is not just for the first ship of the class. The next three will also be delayed.
So, a simple MCM vessel will be delayed nearly a year (and you know it will be later than that!). Perhaps foreign shipyards/builders are not the miracle workers so many of us want to believe? Perhaps they’re not really any different or better than we are? Perhaps they do some things a bit better and some things a bit worse but, overall, they’re no different from us?
At the request of Belgium Naval & Robotics, a Naval Group-Exail consortium, the delivery schedule of the first four of the twelve ships acquired in 2019 has been updated. The lead ship, BNS Oostende (M940), was originally expected on December 23, 2024. The Belgian Navy will have to wait eight more months.[1]
The delay is not just for the first ship of the class. The next three will also be delayed.
The Dutch Navy’s first ship, the BNS Vlissingen (M840), was to be delivered in June 2025. Dutch sailors will to wait five to six more months. The BNS Tournai (M941) and BNS Scheveningen (M841) will arrive respectively one and two months late.[1]
So, a simple MCM vessel will be delayed nearly a year (and you know it will be later than that!). Perhaps foreign shipyards/builders are not the miracle workers so many of us want to believe? Perhaps they’re not really any different or better than we are? Perhaps they do some things a bit better and some things a bit worse but, overall, they’re no different from us?
 |
| Dutch-Belgian MCM Mothership |
Every time I’ve looked into foreign shipyards and builders
in any detail, they come up no better than us.
You might recall a recent post citing many examples of foreign shipyard
failures similar to ours (see, “Foreign Ships AreMagnificent”).
I have nothing against using a foreign shipyard under
certain, limited circumstances but I doubt it will produce any real improvement
in quality, faster builds, or cheaper costs.
On the plus side, it would add an element of competition which is
conspicuously absent and that alone might spur some small degree of
improvement.
_____________________________
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/belgian-dutch-rmcm-mine-warfare-program-facing-delays/
Check out the Japanese Mogami 5,500t class frigates, contract award for this all new design was August 2017, would seem to contradict your premise, would say a lot of unkowns.
ReplyDeleteLaunch history
2021 FFM-1 Mogami Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard & Machinery Works No. 2 slipway (Musashi)
2020 FFM-2 Kumano Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Maritime Systems
2021 FFM-3 Noshiro Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard & Machinery Works 1st Dock
2021 FFM-4 Mikuma Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard & Machinery Works 1st Dock
2022 FFM-5 Yahagi Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard & Machinery Works 1st Dock
2022 FFM-6 Agano Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard 1st Dock?
2023 FFM-7 Yodo Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard & Machinery Works 1st Dock
2023 FFM-8 Yubetsu Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Maritime Systems
2024 FFM-9 04FFM Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard, not launched
2024 FFM-10 04FFM Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard, not launched
"would seem to contradict your premise"
DeleteHow so? I'm not seeing it.
Delete" The claim, with almost no supporting evidence, is that foreign builders build ships faster, better, and cheaper"
Definitely not an apples to apples comparison but indicative, compared to the Constellation whose contract was awarded April 2020 and delivery said to be in 2029 and expect launch approx. two years earlier, so seven years to launch whereas Mogami first launch three years from contract award and a drumbeat of two ships launched per year since, said to be coming in under $500 million per ship.
PS Would point out that its not all down to the delay in build by the Fincantieri MM shipyard with Constellation as its at a major disadvantage and handy capped by the Navy which continues to continuously tinker with the design and commonality with Italian FREMM dropped from contract award of 85% to less than 15%, so that four years after contract award not one of the 39 ship's Blocks is the design completed according to the GAO.
Far Eastern shipyards will not start build until design is 100% complete.
Mitsubishi, Union yards delivering ships on time.
DeleteThat can sail without a engineering casualty occurring.
They make LockMart look like Samuel Pepys.
A low bar, but we're grading on a curve.
Well I scrambled that comment,
DeleteMitsubishi is Samuel Pepys compared to LockMarts
gang of interns.
"whereas Mogami first launch three years from contract award"
DeleteLet's be careful to be accurate. Wiki states that the contract was awarded in Aug 2017. First ship launch was Mar 2021 and commissioned Apr 2022. That's 3 yr and 7 months to launch and 4 yr, 8 months to commission.
In comparison, the last 9 Burkes averaged a year and a half to two years, laid to launch and the Burkes are substantially bigger ships.
"a drumbeat of two ships launched per year"
For comparison, 22 Burkes were launched from 2005-2019 inclusive which is an average of 1.5 ships per year. Not that much different and, again, Burkes are substantially larger.
Given the size differential, I'd say the US and Japan are basically the same with the US Burke production perhaps being greater on a tonnage basis - I haven't done the arithmetic.
"Constellation"
Without a doubt, the Constellation is shaping up to be a disaster but, as you note, that's more in the Navy's lap than the builder's.
"That can sail without a engineering casualty occurring."
DeleteWhat makes you say that? Do you have data on Japanese naval engineering casualties? I'm pretty sure you don't and you're just speculating. We hear about every US Navy engineering casualty. We never hear about Japanese casualties unless you have an inside source. If you do, please share it.
It needs to be noted that Mogami production is split between two yards, with a total tonnage of 22000 tons.
DeleteMeanwhile the Fincanteri yard in America is building the last three Freedoms, four Saudi Twaiq frigates, AND Constellation, for a total tonnage of 32,000 tons of ship in ONE yard.
They are quite clearly biting off more than they can chew.
People talk about South Korea and Japan, 2nd and 3rd shipbuilders in the world (China is No. 1, more than rest combined). If you add China, South Korea, and Japan, ~95% worldwide civilian ship building.
ReplyDeleteExactly. And China had been hardcore declared dual purpose where anything civilian has to be convertible to military for at least the last 15 years. Shipyards, RoRo vessels, fishing fleet et al.
Delete"China is No. 1"
DeleteYes, but how is that relevant to the post? What point are you trying to make?
I agree. I dont think theres a huge advantage at all. I did notice a large Japanese shipbuilder close recently and wondered if a US company buying it might be useful...(??)
ReplyDeleteI think one of the biggest problems is that the USN is a terrible customer!! The actual good/bad designs aside, the lack of predictability of the future, and the stop/starts that cause ripples in the workforce are a big issue. The fact that someone cant say "I want a career as a shipbuilder", and have even the remotest shot at working for 20yrs uninterrupted is a HUGE problem. We have to start building large classes of ships. Purchased in block buys that help give the yards and the supply chain stability. And each block buy should be of a 100% complete design, that the Navy can NOT change. We should turn out 3-6 ships that are absolutely identical except for the hull number on the bow!! Any changes or upgrades that come up can only be added to the next block. Period. Furthermore, the ships must be 100% complete before trials and commissioning. Completely ready for a crew, stores, and combat. No post-commissioning "availabilities" that are actually still construction. These are the kind of steps that will ensure stability in the yards and workforce. And by demanding the Navy has complete (and unchangeable) plans before the keel is laid, and will only commission combat ready ships, the process will streamline and become more efficient. Then contracts can start being written that will foster competition, and we wont be paying extra due to delays that are usually Navy-inflicted.
"So, a simple MCM vessel will be delayed nearly a year (and you know it will be later than that!)."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't exactly call it a simple MCM vessel. It incorporates some pretty revolutionary concepts. If they make it work, it will be quite the accomplishment.
But this ship is for mine hunting only--no sweeping. Hunting is the slow, one-by-one, removal of mines. This ship does include some improvements designed to speed up that process. If everything works as planned, it could revolutionize mine hunting, but that will still be a relatively slow process.
The Dutch and Belgians focus on hunting because their primary objective is to keep the mouths of the Rhine open to commercial shipping. They want 100% clearance as a result. That is not really possible with sweeping, which is based more on probabilities and confidence levels. Sweeping is a quick and dirty process for military operations where yu ask the commander how much risk he is willing to take, and then sweep to that risk level.
I have recommended a combination approach for the USN. One, build some mother ships for drone and helo seeps. These would probably look like smaller LSDs/LPDs, with say 3 minesweeping helos on the flight deck, and 4-6 drones and 3-4 helo sleds in the well deck. These would sweep until the desired risk and confidence level were obtained, and then the military operation would proceed. Afterwards, hunters would come in and achieve 100% clearance for supply vessels and commercial shipping to resume.
Let me clarify a bit. When I wrote revolutionary concepts, I did not mean USN-type "invent it as we go along" concepts. It's more a case of taking a number of existing concepts and marrying them together on one platform.
Delete"If everything works as planned"
DeleteYes, because that happens ... never.
"it could revolutionize mine hunting"
??? In what way? Drone mine hunters have been around for many years and the concept of one-at-a-time mine hunting has been around as long as mines have been around.
"I wouldn't exactly call it a simple MCM vessel. "
DeleteThe vessel has no advanced radar or sensors, no weapons to speak of, no advanced combat fire control software suite, no armor, and no complex propulsion system. It's essentially a cargo ship for drones with a few davits or overhead cranes. That's as simple as naval construction gets.
The Dutch and Belgians will always go for hunting because their primary concern is keeping the mouths of the Rhine open for commercial traffic, and that requires 100% clearance. With multiple drones operating simultaneously, the class can speed up the process a bit. But hunting will always be slower than sweeping.
DeleteSweep to open the way for military operations that carry an inherent level of risk. Then hunt to achieve 100% clearance so that cargo vessels can come in to provide logistics. The USN is currently pursuing an approach of doing neither well.
When your shipyards are mostly dependent on military orders, but the military has nowhere else to buy from and needs to keep the yards alive, there's no motive to build quickly and efficiently.
ReplyDeleteIf the military has to compete for building slots with civilian orders, the military has to be somewhat efficient. The Western powers need to revive their civilian shipbuilding if they want to have large navies at sane prices.
I understand the point you're making but it's a bit more nuanced than that.
Delete"there's no motive to build quickly and efficiently."
That's true only to a very small extent. The faster and more efficiently a yard builds a ship, the greater their profit margin especially with the incentivized contracts the Navy uses.
Yes, a drawn out, delayed build does produce additional revenue from the cost overruns but it's not a full reimbursement and comes only after protracted legal fights. In short, it's not worth it to the builder when they can make more by being fast and efficient.
Where you are correct is the issue of quality rather than speed and efficiency. There truly is no motive for the builder to exert any quality effort whatsoever since the Navy doesn't use warranties and any quality issues are handled as post-delivery, add-on work which is pure profit for the builder.
All that said, the main cause of delays and inefficiency is the Navy with their incomplete designs and constant change orders.
It's unfortunate that it's so hard to get info on Japanese/South Korean built ships. Since those countries do build far more ships than US and European yards (albeit mostly commercial ones), one might at least hope that they've learned enough to build warships more efficiently as well.
ReplyDeleteHey! I got an idea, I bet we could contract with the Chinese to build us some new ships....
ReplyDeleteFWIW looking at the Japanese ASEV vs the DDG(X), build ASEV contract awarded 2024 vs planned 2032 for DDD(X) / ~17,000t vs ~13,000t displacement / $2.5 billion per ship vs CBO estimates $3.2 to 3.4 billion per DDG(X). March '23 Navy awarded design contracts to BIW, Ingalls and Gibbs & Cox. RR rec'd order this last week for twin MT30s per ship for the ASEV as part of its hybrid electro-mechanical propulsion system.
ReplyDeleteThe JMSDF is expecting to take delivery of the first ASEV during fiscal year 2027, with the second one in the following fiscal year, expect first DDG(X) delivery 2037? It would appear at first glance the Japanese can move much faster than US in design and build.
Japan MoD Secures $2.5 billion to build two ASEV for FY2024 - Naval News
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11679
We need to examine public announcements critically and questioningly instead of accepting them at face value.
DeleteFor example, the ASEV began in 2020 when the Aegis Ashore program was cancelled and Japan announced that it would build two ASEV ships. Wiki cites the overall cost estimate for both ships to be $7.1B USD ($3.5B each).
The DDG(x) program office was established in Jun 2021. Even now, the Navy doesn't really know what it wants. That's not a design issue, that's a 'what the hell do you want' issue. In comparison, the Japanese knew exactly what they wanted and it was a very focused, single-function ship.
"Even now, the Navy doesn't really know what it wants. "
DeleteAnd this is fairly absurd. We know the Flt III is maxed out. It should be fairly simple to set requirements and whip up a fresh design. Give us a new hull, with room and power to supply the newest SPY iteration, plus power margins for a couple upgrades,and a couple lasers or whatever. No non-existent tech, just a new hull with more power for the latest systems. Its not hard. With the program office being 3 years old, there really should be a pretty complete, ready to build design by now. Does anyone think that we couldnt have a detailed design done by now?? We're just lacking the urgency to get it done...
Whereas the DDG(X) program office might only date back to June 2021 but the Navy next Future Large Combatant, a DDG(X) by a another name, which understand dates back to Feb 2017 and in Aug 2018 USNI News stated the Pentagon/Navy would buy the first in 2023, currently the first DDG(X) buy planned for 2032 nine years later.
Deletehttps://news.usni.org/2018/08/28/navys-next-large-surface-combatant-will-draw-ddg-51-ddg-1000-dont-call-destroyer
The Navy, quite rightly, kicks around ideas and concepts all the time about all manner of vessels. That doesn't mean they've committed to anything. Again, we need to recognize the difference between 'what the hell do I even want' and 'I'm ready so let's issue a contract and start the design blueprints'.
DeleteThe thrust of this discussion is whether foreign countries can routinely design and build ships faster, better, and cheaper than we can and, so far, every time I've looked deeply into it, the answer is more or less no.
As far as the Japanese ASEV, they knew exactly what they wanted and were prepared to begin designing and building. As I've documented, their actual build times and costs are comparable.
A little off subject, but when I read the Dutch Navy was building an MCM called the BNS Scheveningen, it reminded me as a little boy in the 1970s going to the American School of the Hague (ASH) in Scheveningen.
ReplyDeleteOur Elementary School building had been the HQ of the Gestapo in Holland during the occupation by Germany. Our recess area was surrounded by tall, brick walls which had been the exercise area for the Dutch prisoners. In one section (where we used to play Dodge Ball) you could still see the bullet holes in the brickwork where they had executed Dutch resistance members.
Also: My dad's Dutch boss had been in the resistance during the war. He told me, "Scheveningen" was often their password because German's found that particular Dutch word almost impossible to say correctly.
I love this kind of real world experience contribution. Thank you for sharing!
Delete