Tsavo Lion wrote:New Turkish-Built Dry Dock Will Not Solve Russia’s Deeper Shipbuilding Problems
What a hot mess of an article. Just read this section for example.
Turkey will build a floating dry dock with a 30,000-ton capacity, large enough to construct the new generation of icebreakers the Russian government plans to service the Northern Sea Route. (The only existing dock presently available in the Russian High North is too small to handle these new Arctic-ready craft.) The need for such a dock has been under discussion in Russia since 2015, but no Russian yard was capable of building it. Now, a Turkish one will replace an older Russian floating dock that ingloriously sank three years ago (Twitter.com/KovtunM, October 30, 2018; see EDM, November 1, 2018). The giant PD-50 floating dock’s demise has blocked both icebreaker construction and the refitting of other naval ships, including most of its larger vessels, since that time.
What icebreaker construction? The icebreakers are being built at St. Petersburg. Also, how will this Turkish floating dry dock they talk about with 30,000 ton capacity replace PD-50 which could service the Admiral Kuznetsov? This author is completely retarded. The floating dry docks are going to be used for icebreaker maintenance, not construction, and they are too small to service carriers. Even the helicopter carriers Russia is building are too heavy for it.
Russia’s naval shipyards are a disaster, with money coming into them in ever-increasing amounts but nothing coming out. (Nuclear submarines are the only part of production that has not collapsed, he says). He blames this on the Kremlin’s decision to unify all shipbuilding into a single corporation and install corrupt and incompetent managers there (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, December 17, 2020). At present, Makiyenko writes, “practically all” shipbuilding projects are behind schedule and far over budget, with no one confident when deliveries will happen or what the costs of the finished product will be. Disturbingly for Moscow, the larger and the more important the vessel, the greater both of these problems have been.
Bollocks. Russian nuclear submarine construction continued because it did not depend on foreign manufactured components like engines. Because of strategic characteristic of nuclear submarines little if anything used in them is imported. Also the nuclear submarine construction started at least a decade before the surface construction and the designs were a lot more mature so of course they are further ahead on the life cycle.
It is also bullshit that putting the shipbuilding companies under United Shipbuilding Corporation made things worse. This is painfully obvious if you look at the Amur shipyard as a case in point. It had systemic problems which originally led to its nuclear attack submarine production being cut when Yeltsin was still in power. It took nine whole years to build and launch its first corvette. It is now doing much better. The fact is most of these shipyards did not have the economies of scale to handle projects on their own, a lot of them lacked trained staff, they lacked civilian orders when military orders did not come, putting them under the same enterprise allows mitigating these issues. Could it have been solved some other way? Probably. But other solutions were tried before and they did not work. The alternative in the US, a private duopoly which continuously milks the state for cash, is not better.