That's not something China hopes to emulate. Outsourcing to different shipyards was a profit-sharing scheme lobbied by profit-seeking industrialists and vote-seeking politicians. On the larger scale, it introduced production inefficiencies in the construction of the QEs which contributed to their downgrade from CATOBAR to STOVLs.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
That's not something China hopes to emulate. Outsourcing to different shipyards was a profit-sharing scheme lobbied by profit-seeking industrialists and vote-seeking politicians. On the larger scale, it introduced production inefficiencies in the construction of the QEs which contributed to their downgrade from CATOBAR to STOVLs.
Not everything done in the west is the holly bible to follow.In addition to what others have already said regarding the lower effort required for wiring and piping, the modular construction method allows for different parts of the ship to be outsourced to different yards, versus a convential method which requires all parts to be assembled in the same yard.
See this infographic of the QE - different sections were built by different yards simultaneously, and then barged to Rosyth for final assembly.
Theoretically speaking, it's simply faster to have multiple yards working on different components of the same end product. How can we say that outsourced construction is "not something China hopes to emulate," when on the contrary, past rumors have indicated at this possibility?
IMO profitability is outside the scope of this discussion. Financial and bureaucratic inefficiencies are the UK's problem. What I'm referring to is the possibility that part of 003's construction may well be outsourced to other Shanghainese yards, based on what we've heard so far.
My point is, I don't see how the British failure to successfully implement outsourced construction invalidates any potential Chinese attempt to do the same.
Did everyone already forget this post from half a year ago??
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-002-cv-18-carrier-news-discussions.t8048/page-178#post-511905
Please don't put up straw man arguments when there has been clear indication of the possibility that 003 production may be outsourced around Shanghai.
Yes, it's just a rumor, but all we have are rumors at this point...
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-002-cv-18-carrier-news-discussions.t8048/page-178#post-511905
Please don't put up straw man arguments when there has been clear indication of the possibility that 003 production may be outsourced around Shanghai.
Yes, it's just a rumor, but all we have are rumors at this point...
Intrepid
Major
Everybody can read the letters "CSSC" on the large gantry cranes.
I think the advantage is easy to calculate.
If the ship built in dock then maybe two team can build it into two direction.
By making say ten main assembly it can be built by twenty team, and one more team can do the joining as the unites arrive.
The sum work hours will be the same, but the lead time will decrease, and that reduce the interest / financing need.
So, the twenty two team can build eleven ship in x time for y+interest cost each, or in x/11 time for y+y/11 interest cost each.
The key as I see is that what is the commonalities between the two working units, are they like (hypothetically):
- BMW's American plant and Germany plant building sourcing components with each other for the same model based on same procedure and standard?
- BMW's plant taking in components built by VW's plant according to VW procedure that BMW has no control nor knowledge?
We're not in disagreement. It's not so much the practice of super-module assembly that is under criticism, it's the UK's rationale for adopting it.