054/A FFG Thread II

[Wolverine]

what the heck are you talking about? It has all to do with shipbuilding being very efficient in China + using all domestically developed equipments -> cheap.

What the heck are you talking about? What makes you think shipbuilding is "very efficient" in China? Warship manufacturing is almost certainly LESS efficient in China compared to the US, where they have been building the Arleigh Burke and other cutting edge warships for decades. Just because it's smaller doesn't mean Chinese manufacturers can make it more efficiently. The price tag for 054A is cheaper because of the smaller size, slightly cheaper materials, and domestic equipment, not because of any efficiency in Chinese warship manufacturing.

By the way, $250 million is meaningless without further explanation of what is actually included in that number. That's why I said the total sail-away price for the ship could actually be double that once you factor in everything else minus the crew. That's how it is for the "$1 billion" Arleigh Burke.

well, just look at fremm class, you can put Aster 30 there. Can you do that on 054A?

What does this have anything to do with what I said?

 

[Wolverine]

Why are my posts being censored???

 

[crobato]

There is an automatic moderation in the forum software if you're a new member to counter spammers. It will go away the more you post.

 

[tphuang]

Why are my posts being censored???

it's not being censored because you replied to me if that's what you were wondering. Your last post triggered spam alert, so I had to validate it.

What the heck are you talking about? What makes you think shipbuilding is "very efficient" in China? Warship manufacturing is almost certainly LESS efficient in China compared to the US, where they have been building the Arleigh Burke and other cutting edge warships for decades. Just because it's smaller doesn't mean Chinese manufacturers can make it more efficiently. The price tag for 054A is cheaper because of the smaller size, slightly cheaper materials, and domestic equipment, not because of any efficiency in Chinese warship manufacturing.

By the way, $250 million is meaningless without further explanation of what is actually included in that number. That's why I said the total sail-away price for the ship could actually be double that once you factor in everything else minus the crew. That's how it is for the "$1 billion" Arleigh Burke.

The same reasons that make Chinese civilian shipbuilding cheap also makes their military shipbuilding cheap. That's why Korea and Japan were able to build their Aegis ships on schedule and on budget. The same reasons that make US manufacturing uncompetitive in civilian production also makes it non-cost effective in naval shipbuilding. It's not like the union will accept pay cut just because they are building for the navy instead of Exxon Mobile. Also consider this, when you keep on getting civilian contracts, that gives you capital to do more investment to train your workers and buy new equipments and do more RnD on improving QC. When you don't, which is the case for India (and US to a less degree), you end up with having to invest more to upgrade the shipyard/work forces to be able to build new warship types.

The cost originally converted to $200 million, it only became 250 because of USD depreciation (actually it's still more like 225). I rounded up a little bit because that cost did not include the missiles (but did include the launchers). I've never heard of anyone including food + fuel in the cost of building a warship, lol.

And that cost was the costs for lead of class units for the shipyards. Now, it probably doesn't include the RnD cost for systems like HH-16 and YJ-83, but they get such wide scale deployment later that they don't come out to that much when you spread it across all the systems.

What does this have anything to do with what I said?

if you actually bothered to read the one post before, you'd know that I was replying to the previous poster.

 

[lilzz]

Cleary India has watched with jealousy and doesn't sit well with them that China has pumped out so many advanced 054A indegenously. So, the high cost of P17A is clearly an indication that they will do whatever to match what's China is doing;Making thing indegenously. They always try to compare themselves and try to match whatever China is doing.

 

[szbd]

Exactly how many 054A built or started to build? Including those already in service. I remembered it's 7, right?

thx

 

[Ambivalent]

it's not being censored because you replied to me if that's what you were wondering. Your last post triggered spam alert, so I had to validate it.

The same reasons that make Chinese civilian shipbuilding cheap also makes their military shipbuilding cheap. That's why Korea and Japan were able to build their Aegis ships on schedule and on budget. The same reasons that make US manufacturing uncompetitive in civilian production also makes it non-cost effective in naval shipbuilding. It's not like the union will accept pay cut just because they are building for the navy instead of Exxon Mobile. Also consider this, when you keep on getting civilian contracts, that gives you capital to do more investment to train your workers and buy new equipments and do more RnD on improving QC. When you don't, which is the case for India (and US to a less degree), you end up with having to invest more to upgrade the shipyard/work forces to be able to build new warship types.

The cost originally converted to $200 million, it only became 250 because of USD depreciation (actually it's still more like 225). I rounded up a little bit because that cost did not include the missiles (but did include the launchers). I've never heard of anyone including food + fuel in the cost of building a warship, lol.

And that cost was the costs for lead of class units for the shipyards. Now, it probably doesn't include the RnD cost for systems like HH-16 and YJ-83, but they get such wide scale deployment later that they don't come out to that much when you spread it across all the systems.

if you actually bothered to read the one post before, you'd know that I was replying to the previous poster.

There are reasons why US military programs are increasingly over budget and exceed schedule deadlines, but not the reasons you mention. The primary reasons include wishful thinking during the cost estimation process, exacerbated by a surprising lack of historical data on the cost of legacy weapons systems ( can't make a high fidelity statistical model with junk for data, my personal bane ), programs that rush programs to production without fully testing a representative prototype ( in some case a weapon will be in production for a couple of years before the final configuration is determined and tested, meaning all the early production units have to go back and be modified to the final configuration ) or pushing something into production without even having 90% of the technical drawings completed. All of these bad habits lead to cost over runs and schedule slips, and the trend is getting worse. It has nothing to do with shipyard production workers or aircraft assembly workers, the problems all lie in some very poor program management practices. There are regulations that are supposed to prevent these from occurring ( see the latest edition of DoDI 5000.02, which is a public document ) but leadership in the services does not adhere to these and there is no reward for meeting schedule or cost deadlines or punishment for no meeting these. Most program managers move on in under two years, meaning there is little in the way of accountablilty.

 

[tphuang]

There are reasons why US military programs are increasingly over budget and exceed schedule deadlines, but not the reasons you mention. The primary reasons include wishful thinking during the cost estimation process, exacerbated by a surprising lack of historical data on the cost of legacy weapons systems ( can't make a high fidelity statistical model with junk for data, my personal bane ), programs that rush programs to production without fully testing a representative prototype ( in some case a weapon will be in production for a couple of years before the final configuration is determined and tested, meaning all the early production units have to go back and be modified to the final configuration ) or pushing something into production without even having 90% of the technical drawings completed. All of these bad habits lead to cost over runs and schedule slips, and the trend is getting worse. It has nothing to do with shipyard production workers or aircraft assembly workers, the problems all lie in some very poor program management practices. There are regulations that are supposed to prevent these from occurring ( see the latest edition of DoDI 5000.02, which is a public document ) but leadership in the services does not adhere to these and there is no reward for meeting schedule or cost deadlines or punishment for no meeting these. Most program managers move on in under two years, meaning there is little in the way of accountablilty.

those are additional reasons why US naval ships cost so much more. If the shipyard workers hourly salary gets cut in half, because that's what the market is paying for, you don't think the ships will get built more cheaply in America? If the corporate taxes for manufacturing in America gets cut in half, you don't think the ships will get built more cheaply?

There are basic reasons regarding the production quality and efficiency of a shipyard. If your workers are not doing any work normally and you can't get the loans to buy all the machinery you need, the cost is going up regardless of how well the specs are defined and how well the projects are managed.

 

[Londo Molari]

It has nothing to do with shipyard production workers or aircraft assembly workers, the problems all lie in some very poor program management practices. There are regulations that are supposed to prevent these from occurring ( see the latest edition of DoDI 5000.02, which is a public document ) but leadership in the services does not adhere to these and there is no reward for meeting schedule or cost deadlines or punishment for no meeting these. Most program managers move on in under two years, meaning there is little in the way of accountablilty.

That supports the argument that the U.S. is less efficient at ship-building.

 

[Mashan]

That supports the argument that the U.S. is less efficient at ship-building.

That is an understatement since everything we make in the US cost more, that's why we see so many products designed in the US and made oversea. We make some of the best hardware commercial and military, but if you want it don't ask for the price. It is like going to a 5 star restaurant ordering a bottle of Château le puy Rouge (2002), just enjoy and paid the bill.