SA
Thanks for link, it looks great!
Clearly we can't compare a warship with a simple commercial ship ton for ton. A warship has, as mentioned above by many, lots of equipment expensive machinery and f.ex. has to accommodate a large crew. A container ship is in essence "just" a steel box with an engine plus a dozen hotel rooms strapped on the back. On the other hand some special commercial ships are more like warships, not armed or filled with military sensor suites, of course, but with f.e.x. large crew accommodation, large engines, specialized equipment etc. So, in my mind, there should be a grey zone, as long as we talk about the "platform" (ship minus war specific "gadgets").
I suggest that the price of a warship is bloated by:
A)
A sub-optimal organisation of the industry.
In most leading warship-building nations (say, US,UK,Fr,Gr) most ships are built by few yards, who specializes in warships and (perhaps with the exception of Germany) has one major customer (the MoD of the respective country). Further more f.ex. in the cases of UK or US* these warship builders are in fact the only (or at least dominating) ship builders left. Leaving a picture of an ENTIRE industry (not just warship building, but shipbuilding in general) secluded and isolated from competition, except on it's own terms.
(Note* US got a substantial commercial shipbuilding industry left, but it's protected and hugely uncompetitive)
B)
Because of the isolation and lack of competition, ship designs becomes driven by: "What we can build", "What we like to build", "How we usually build" instead of "What we need to build".
In other words, instead of having "satisfying the customer" as number one priority, the ship builder satisfies himself (f.ex. by building a technically great ship). Because of this all sorts of spurious standards and antiquated practices pile up into elaborate and cumbersome work processes motivated by "That's how we usually do", "That's how it should be done". There is no or little room for innovation, because there is no incentive for innovation (because of isolation from competition).
C)
A completely mad idea, that a warship has to made up by the most cutting edge tech that a given country's industry can develop. Popular speaking, If a warship is "tainted" by something from "yesterday" it's probably because it's a low budget, k-mart ship that probably don't work.
F.ex. Nuclear instead of traditional conventional propulsion. Diesel-electric instead of diesel-diesel or CODLAG/CODAG. I bet my hat that the operative differences are minor between these types of machines but the differences in risk during development and construction, not to mention operating new, untested machinery, is HUGE.
There are exceptions to this- The area air defense technology of the Type 45 is a capability jump, worth every penny. One doesn't have to go cheap on the core capability, the very reason of the new ship. Though I suggest that the RN would probably have been equally pleased with a ship, made with a lot more traditional and low risk solutions, but still having the same area air defense cabability...?
D) Those who buy and pay the ship are not those who will use it.
Mmm...
You have some STRANGE thoughts on this subject. Lets look at your comments & see if we can't start a reasonable 'discussion'....
Point A.
Sub-optimal Industrial organisation. Shipbuilding is a HEAVY Industry & society has an opinion that we are in the golden age of computer technology. This belief has stripped the Industry across the globe of many things from Funding, to the need of specialist skills. Political factors regarding budgets have also driven the industry into a corner.
The UK govt's idea of creating something that is, in effect, a single supplier is a prime example, of how we have ended up. It is not so much industries fault, but that of those in government, who have forced the companies to ' adapt or die'.
Point B
Spurious Standards & Antiquated Practices.
Shipbuilding has a history of technical Innovation & has been at the centre of global transport, trading & economics since the beginning of recorded history !
It is a behemoth that has built empires & reduced the planet to the size of a big blue marble. In doing so it has created 'rules' that are true when designing & building ships, no matter the material used. To frivolously disregard such things puts lives & profits in danger, & to a certain respect the planet (
especially if transporting dangerous chemicals or Nuclear components).
As for Modern Shipbuilder's, they often look at commercial enterprises, how things have improved on land & examine the use of lighter & stronger materials, to help reduce overall costs throughout the life of the ship. Yes, there is an old phrase that states 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', but sometimes when it comes down to perfecting techniques or materials used, the old ways are the best, as we sometimes can't improve on perfection !
Point C
Type 45's design & capability.
Now lets look at history, again...
If Nation 'a', can't develop equipment to combat nation 'b', then it could be over run & tyrannically ruled.
Navies have relied on that ideology since we 1st learned to sail the seas, & here we are in the 21st century, still doing the same thing.
Now do you seriously believe that a 1960's designed destroyer could match, never mind beat Type 45 ? Go on pick anything, from top speed, distance that the ship can cover on 1 tank of fuel, to the distance weapons can travel. She wins hands down. Why ?
The advances in technology & design.
Yes, we could wax lyrically about how T-45 started as CNGF, then Horizon, etc. But the reality is that she's substantially different from that. & even now, if you were to ask senior officials in the RN about designing a destroyer, they may use T-45 as a base line, but the end product would be different again. It is the nature of the beast.
Point D...
Never a truer word spoken. Then again, when it comes to the RN, changing your posting every 3 years does mean that those who are responsible for the state of the RN have moved on to other things, washing their hands of their mistakes & leaving the 'new guy' to pick up the pieces.
Add to that a hierarchical system where an individual has to perform (in the eyes of their peers) & often does so by choosing to undo the things that their predecessor has done.
....& you thought that politicians where the ones to blame !
But moving on, with something to ponder.
Navies will ALWAYS want the best. The best they can afford is more often what they receive nowadays, so they 'make do & mend'. So if that means cutting the size of your fleet, so that it remains sustainable & active, vs large & antiquated, which option would YOU choose ??
SA :?'
