hmmm good question Sferrin, I don’t have Google Earth over here, but maybe you should check Okpo (South Korea), where Daewoo builds its ULCCs and VLCCs. I have inside pictures of those docks and they look pretty large. On the pics you can see a ULCC with a large LNG carrier being built right next to it.

Otherwise I suggest you check Singapore, as that (as I’ve heard, haven’t checked that yet) seems to be a place where a lot of large boats go into dry dock, although that’s not a building yard and hence probably accomodates a single ship rather than several as done in a building yard.

Turkey also has some large docks and don’t forget to check Dubai either, Jahre Viking, now Knox Nevis, the largest ship in the world, was converted there to a Floating Storage and Offloading ship.

of course, China makes VLCCs and builds several ships in one dock. USSR never quite got into building large merchant ships except for some cruise ships for the “elite” and those weren’t even that large either. This made the Kuznetsov the largest ship they ever built and hence they didn’t have yards for larger ships, certainly not with a slipway that big.
China uses the dry dock construction method to build ships, they don’t have the same problem as the launching method on a surface slipway. Wouldn’t be surprised if some of their building docks are larger than 400m…

Designing aircraft carriers is huge task as they presents the most complex applycation of surface ships.

Depends on how you see it…

I always wondered why the Soviets didn’t make Kuznetsov and Varyag longer than they are. They always wanted the biggest of everything, why not the biggest carrier? The additional length would most likely have increased the take-off weight for the aircraft too by using a longer runway. The hangar would have been lengthened too that way and probably an increased number of aircraft.
Lengthening it wouldn’t have cost that much more or were they really that constrained by money? All in all I think the lengthening would have given a lot more advantages than extra cost.

For China, probably they will go Varyag’s way, redesigning the island would be nice. As for the internal lay-out, it would be able to carry more fuel and stores instead of the huge missile armament it was designed to carry. That seems the most efficient way of replacing those things.

Doesn’t look that rusty to me…
As for Broncho asking in the other topic, the picture shown there was recent too, the quality was rather poor which makes it look like it was an old picture.

In the end, Australia’s new destroyers will probably not represent any cost saving over any DDG-51 class ships built in US shipyards. They might very well represent a lesser capabilty at a greater cost to Australian taxpayers.

If it is built in Australia then it will bring new income to the people who have to build it, so in the end it will bring more taxes to the governement too. It will pay itself back a little, if you buy them in US, all the money just flows out of your country to US.
Of course there is no doubt that buying a Burke in US would have been the best option, with a production run of 52 built and 10 more to go, the design phase has already been paid back and the building cost will be reasonable. And it’s proven of course.
I think it’s the lobbying of the labour parties again. Typical for Australia. They are really a pain in the ass. They give a dredging contract to a foreign dredging company, but demand an Australian crew. They oblige you to let Australian workers do the tankwashing for you instead of doing it yourself. And so on. Those are just some examples of how strong the labour parties are when it comes to maritime business. I guess the same counted in the decision to build these AAW destroyers themselves.

Taiwan approached every submarine builder after the US denial of SSKs.

I think what you pointed out here pretty much summarizes what all current warship builders are experiencing. US has a production of 52 Burkes by now, they can keep those going and hence keep the experience. Most of the other navies build 6 ships and there it ends for the next two decades… UK is probably the best example of this. No continuation often means death of your shipbuilding. It has to keep commercial contracts to stay alive and in the West that is not a viable option anymore.

Putin Prioritizes Oil Platforms, Tankers
Thursday, November 02, 2006

Russian President Vladimir Putin prioritized the construction of oil platforms and tankers in the shipbuilding sector. Projects are being implemented for the construction of platforms for the development of oil and gas fields on the continental shelf, and a definite class of tankers, Putin said, opening a meeting devoted to shipbuilding industry issues.
Russia, which holds the world’s largest natural gas reserves and is among the top 10 countries in terms of oil reserves, is implementing huge oil and gas field projects, particularly the Shtokman deposit off the Arctic shelf, and Sakhalin I and Sakhalin II off the Pacific shelf, that have been the focus of the world’s leading investors. Last month, energy giant Gazprom announced it will develop the Shtokman deposit on its own, a move that stunned Norway’s Statoil and Norsk Hydro, France’s Total, and U.S. giants Chevron and ConocoPhillips, all companies previously on a shortlist of contenders for the project. Russia also seems eager to limit foreign participation in the development of the Russian energy sector and to revise production-sharing agreements. Devised in the 1990s, when oil prices were much lower, PSAs offered investors major tax benefits, which provided a kind of risk bonus for investing in Russia. Source: RIA Nivosti

Awch, that’s going to get cold in there…

It would have required a new engine room anyway, fire or no fire, for the upgrade of the boilers you need a new engineroom. Those boilers seem to be very small compared to the regular merchant boilers though. I suppose I know why they have to have so many people in the engine room… Flamepipe boilers. brr, I’m getting the shivers of that.

USN just kicks a broken down aircraft oveboard if it poses a problem, I guess India will have to do the same if that ever happens. I wouldn’t be all too fixed on that disadvantage though, it seems to me that you are looking for an argument to say it’s rubbish? Honestly I don’t think it will be the deal of the century, but I think they can do something very useful with it.

Range, even for India, is important. You don’t want your carrier to transit somewhere and sit still… It has to keep moving and in that respect it’s important to have a good radius. If you have to move back to port too often, you’ll have a sitting duck with the risk of losing your carrier in a port strike. If you are too dependent on tankers, then the enemy will know that and start targetting your tankers, making sure you have to move to port every so often.