Shipbuilding production in modern conditions
Foreign experience
Shipbuilding production in modern conditions
(on the example of the USA)
The analysis of scientific and practical works shows that the shipbuilding industry is one of the main branches of the world economy and, having a high scientific and technical production potential, is characterized by the following orientation: Firstly, over the past 20 years, the shipbuilding industry of traditional industrialized countries has undergone noticeable changes. The number of buildings under construction has significantly decreased general purpose vessels — tankers, bulk carriers, etc. Their construction was undertaken by such so-called "new developed states", such as, for example, South Korea. At the same time, the industry of the leading maritime states has moved to the predominant production of complex specialized vessels and means of ocean exploration. In other words, another structural restructuring has been carried out in the shipbuilding industry of developed countries. Secondly, in the most developed countries, special industries have been organized, engaged exclusively in the construction of warships and submarines. This made it possible to improve the quality and technical level of products, introduce new technologies and restrain the growth in the cost of ships. However, the narrow specialization of production required the state to pursue a paternalistic policy in relation to shipyards, regardless of the form of ownership of the latter. Concern for the preservation of the defense shipbuilding potential is one of the characteristic features of the industrial policy of all industrially developed states, capable of independently building ships of all classes and equipping them with weapons and mechanisms of their own production. Thirdly, the shipbuilding industry of all developed countries is widely used a variety of components manufactured in many countries of the world. In fact, this led to the fact that the creation of competitive ships began to depend directly on the ability of the customer to purchase component equipment. It is the possibility of importing components for military shipbuilding, it now determines the level of development of the shipbuilding base of a particular state. Fourth, changes in the military-political situation have led to the revision of ship—building programs by almost all ship-building States. As a result of this revision, there was a pause in the replenishment of most fleets with new ships, which may cover at least the first five years of the new century. The desire to preserve their own shipbuilding potential during this period may encourage construction companies with the support of states should pay increased attention to the search for external customers. This gives reason to expect increased competition in the relevant sector of the world market. This served as an incentive to change the positions held in the industry by the traditional countries — manufacturers of merchant ships. The market of simple vessels (bulk carriers, tankers, vessels with horizontal cargo handling, etc.) began to actively fight Japan, South Korea and China, which currently occupy a leading position in the shipbuilding industry. European shipyards today remain leaders in the construction of complex vessels with a high added value, which include chemical tankers, multifunctional vessels for servicing oil fields, cruise liners, various vessels for fishing on the continental shelf. Shipyards and concerns that have close vertical and horizontal cooperation with other enterprises, suppliers and customers and meet the highest requirements for the qualifications of workers and employees are coming to the forefront in the world. Due to the reduction of domestic markets for weapons and military equipment and the intensification of competition in the world market in the 1980s — 1990s, the shipbuilding industry of traditional industrialized countries has undergone significant changes. It is important to note at the same time that recent years have become a period of large-scale processes of mergers and acquisitions of the free defense industry. Boeing, Lockheed corporations appeared in the USA Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, in Great Britain — BAE Systems, in continental Europe — EADS and Thales. The consolidation was mainly in the field of aircraft construction, other branches of the defense industry were not affected as much, especially in the field of transnational unification. A striking example of this is the shipbuilding industry of Western Europe. The high capital intensity of production in the ship building determines the expediency of the concentration of enterprises in the industry. In this connection, in the second half of the last century, there was an active integration of European shipbuilding at the national level. In the 1990s. process has been greatly accelerated culminating in the creation of major national associations, and shipbuilding in such associations is only one of the business areas. The characteristic features were the strict differentiation of enterprises in the military and civilian sectors, as well as the alternation of private and public capital in the terminology familiar to us — private-public partnership). In this regard, the scientific analysis of the world's foreign experience in the functioning of military-industrial companies in the field of shipbuilding production of some leading maritime powers is of particular importance.
Shipbuilding
United States of America
Shipbuilding is one of the oldest industries in the United States, which has the ability to build and repair ships of all classes and merchant ships with a carrying capacity of up to 300 thousand tons. The modern manufacturing base of the US shipbuilding industry is mainly was created during the Second World War, when this industry has grown rapidly. In the 1950s. in the United States began qualitative changes associated with the development of the construction of ships with nuclear power plants—first submarines, and then combat surface ships. Mass building ships for the nuclear missile fleet began in the 1960s. And provided the industry with intensive development. Changes in the industry that have taken place in the 1970s, were due to the implementation of state programs for the construction of the naval forces (Navy) and the development of the merchant fleet, boosted business activity. For of this period, the most characteristic were the increase in the pace of construction of ships and vessels of the Navy, as well as a large amount of work on modernization and ship refurbishment. In the same years in the development of the US shipbuilding industry, there was a tendency to concentrate
military shipbuilding at a limited number of factories and their specialization in the construction of ships of certain classes.
By 1981, there were 37 large shipbuilding enterprises in the United States capable of building ships and vessels over 122 m long. During this period the shipbuilding industry ranked first in the world in terms of production of military ships and auxiliary vessels. The volume of military shipbuilding was up to 60% of the total volume of shipbuilding. Ships were built annually standard displacement 200 - 240 thousand tons. The industry had up to 50 slipways over 200m long and 25 dry docks of the same dimensions. About 200 more construction sites made it possible to build ships with a length from 100 to 200 m. The annual production capacity of the industry was 5.5 million tons from 245 thousand jobs. For many years, the US administration has directly or indirectly supported the nation's shipbuilding industry. In addition, in the USA there is a system of protectionist laws, according to which the load share is provided shipyards and jobs in shipbuilding. So, for example, according to the law on cabotage and domestic shipping (Jones law) the latter may carried out only on ships built on US shipyards and US flagged ships. It should be noted that in connection with the termination of support for the national civil shipbuilding, by the US government in the middle 1980s there was an almost complete halt in the construction of civil courts, bankruptcy a number of shipyards and reducing their number. By 1994 number large shipyards was reduced to 19, only 11 of they had construction orders. Quantity jobs decreased by 40%, employment decreased sharply. According to the Department of Labor, to the middle of 1994 in shipbuilding and ship repair 108 thousand people were employed. The reduction in military orders, caused by a decrease in the level of military confrontation between the USSR (and then Russia) and the USA, required the reconstruction of the shipbuilding industry with a revision of the shipbuilding policy. Today, US shipyards lag far behind their overseas competitors in productivity. Requires significant investment and a long time for US shipyards to become serious competitors in the international commercial shipbuilding market. This conclusion made by US experts after a series of studies and a comparative analysis of the activities of national shipyards. Above all shipyards of others countries are able to build ships in a shorter time and at a lower total cost. US shipyards do not had a portfolio of modern commercial vessel designs. The situation was considered deplorable in critical construction areas such as pre-production, sheet metal processing, stacking, pre-assembly, electrical and painting work. Big problems associated with inefficient organization production and management. In one of the reports the following example is given: welders in shipyards. The United States works on average 141 minutes out of 480 minutes of a working day, while shipyards in Japan work 308 minutes. The last circumstance is a consequence poor coordination of work and ensuring the welding process.
The recommendations made include the reduction and reorganization of the shipyard management apparatus, the concentration of production in modern production complexes, supply management and the creation of data bases on suppliers of equipment and materials for this purpose, the introduction of principles of global quality management and control procedures, increasing the cost of training workers, improving marketing strategy. Specific measures to ensure the entry of American shipbuilding into the international commercial shipbuilding market were. They are set out in the program "Revival of National Shipbuilding" (National Shipbuilding Initiative-NSI) adopted in 1993, which in November 1993 acquired the status of a law. The program provided for the introduction of amendments to Article XI of the U.S. Shipping Act of 1936, providing an economic and legal framework attracting investments for the construction of civil courts. These amendments make it possible for ship owners to receive government loan guarantees in the amount of 87.5% of the ship's value with installments for 25 years and provide loan guarantees in the amount of $ 12 billion for 10 years. Amendments to article XI are not a subsidy program. Formally called the ship financing programs, they provide guarantees for commercial loans. Loan guarantees are given against the debt obligations of ship owners (financing of ships sailing under the American flag or built and modernized at US shipyards) and shipbuilding firms (production development).
The usual form of debt obligations when financing ships is the issue of shares, when financing the development of production — bank loans. In any case, the source of funding is the private sector. One of the main requirements when issuing loan guarantees, it is mandatory to build ships at US shipyards. Loan guarantees can also be issued to equipment suppliers. Manages the program and implements financing for it by the U.S. Merchant Marine Administration (MarAd). In total, the program plans to provide loan guarantees in the amount of $ 12 billion, including no more than $ 3 billion. for the construction of ships for export. The amount for each regular year is determined by the US Congress. Applications for loan guarantees are sent to MarAd, where they are guaranteed to be processed within 60 days. Another essential part of Clinton's planis the MARITECH program. The President presented in Congress report "Strengthening American Shipyards: a plan to increase competitiveness in the international market". The program provides for the development of technical projects and promising technologies aimed at ensuring access to the international market in the shortest possible time and the creation of infrastructure for the development of shipbuilding in the future. The program is a five—year project, which is managed by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the US Department of Defense in consultation with MarAd. The planned financing under the program is $220 million for 5 years. Taking into account the investments of the participating firms, the total financing under the program will amount to $440 million. The financing under the program goes to the project developers only at a pre-determined, pre-agreed stage and amounts to 50% of the amount set under the program, i.e. at the first stages the financing is provided by the developer himself. For some large projects, funds may be allocated for several financial years. The structure of financing under the MARITECH program is as follows: 50% of the funds are allocated for basic research, 35% — for applied research and 25% — for development. In 1998, the MARITECH program was extended for 1999-2003. with a funding volume of $400 million, of which about $130 million was spent on the development of information design and technological systems, about $100 million on modern technological processes for the construction of ships, and about $75 million on promising competitive ship projects. In addition, financing of marketing research, development of organizational issues of production management, and also issues of operational maintenance of the built vessels.
Today, 90% of jobs in the US shipbuilding industry are concentrated in the six largest shipbuilding companies that are part of the American Shipbuilding Association (ASA). Association it was created after these companies considered that their interests were not represented at the negotiations in the OECD announced the termination of subsidizing shipbuilding, and withdrew from the Board of Shipbuilders of the USA. The members of the ASA are "National Steel and Shipbuilding Co.», «Newport News Shipbuilding», «Avondale Shipyards», «Ingalls Shipbuilding», «Bath Iron Works», «General Dynamics», «Electric Boat Division». All of them were previously engaged in the field of military shipbuilding. The reduction of military orders has put them in front of the need to introduce cost-cutting programs and reorientation to the commercial market.
Geographically, most of the shipbuilding and ship repair enterprises in the USA are located in the areas of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Tampa, Mobile, Pasca Gula, New Orleans, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle. According to their affiliation, the enterprises of the industry are divided into public and private. The State sector includes eight Navy shipyards, as well as two repair facilities in San Diego,There are two repair and parking complexes on the island of Guam at the Naval bases Bangor and Kings Bay. The private sector includes about 100 shipyards that are directly owned by firms or leased by them from the Navy and port administrations. By the nature of the main production, enterprises are divided into ship-building, ship-repair and shipbuilding and ship-repair. Of all the shipyards in the USA, 25 shipyards can be used for the construction of submarines and surface ships of all classes (including small ships and boats), of which 21are private sector shipyards, 4 are naval shipyards. Currently, 16 shipyards are operating, and at 9 shipyards, the ship construction capacity is mothballed or used for the construction of commercial or auxiliary vessels for the Navy.
Specialized shipyards engaged in the construction of ships of only certain classes, form the basis of American military shipbuilding. Specialization allows you to actively introduce new technologies, automation tools and use new techniques in the organization of labor. All this has a big economic effect. At the same time, specialization reduces the flexibility of production and creates the danger of dependence of shipbuilding programs on the monopolist enterprise. For example, the construction of atomic missile submarines of the Ohio type was carried out exclusively at the Electric Boat Division shipyard of General Dynamics Corp. (Groton, Connecticut), which by 1977 was a new ship assembly complex has been created. Similarly, nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type are being built exclusive at Newport News Shipbuilding Company (New Port News, Virginia).
At the same time, the leadership of the US Navy takes into account possible negative consequences of processes concentration and specialization of shipbuilding production, therefore, orders for construction ships of all other classes are always distributed between at least two building firms. This is precisely how the creation of the largest surface multi-purpose ships has been carried out in recent years. Their construction is carried out in parallel by Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. (Pascagoula, Louisiana) and Bath Iron Works (Bath, Maine) are the two leading US enterprises in this field. In 1980, Ingalls Shipbuilding began construction of the lead cruiser Ticonderoga, and in 1983, starting with the fifth ship of the series, the Bath Iron Works joined the construction. After intense competition, which unfolded in competition in 1985, Bath Iron Works received an order for the construction of the lead destroyer Arleigh Burke. However, the second ship of the series was commissioned to build already Ingalls Shipbuilding. In the future, these two companies practically alternately handed over and continue to hand over the Navy these ships.
The author also draws attention to the fact that the US government is pursuing a consistent policy of combating monopolism, encouraging the creation of alternative production capacities. So, the company Newport News Shipbuilding in 1988 completed the creation of a new assembly complex providing modular assembly submarines and, in terms of its capabilities, similar to the Electric Boat Division complex, on which Ohio-class submarines were built. The new complex was financed by private banks under US government guarantees. In 1988 - 1989 The US Department of Defense considered the issue of organizing a competition between the two mentioned firms for the right to receive an order for the construction of boats of the Ohio type. No final decision has been made due to with a limit on the total number of ships planned for construction, but the pressure factor on the monopoly is preserved.
In addition to shipyards, which, in fact, are assembly plants, a significantly larger number of contractors are involved in the creation of ships, the cost of which is more than 70% of the total cost of the most complex warship (nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers). The total capacity of the American shipbuilding industry does not cause difficulties in carrying out the shipbuilding programs of the Navy. The shipbuilding program is actually a plan for allocating funds for the construction, repair and modernization of ships and vessels. Traditionally such a program was developed by the US Navy with a lead of 5 years. The program was updated annually and, thus, the planning of the construction of the fleet was carried out within the framework of the so-called "rolling five-year plan". In the early 1990s the forecast period was extended to 6 years.
Repair and modernization of submarines and surface ships of the Navy, provided for by the shipbuilding program, can be carried out at public and private enterprises. At the same time, the re-equipment of nuclear submarines boats are entrusted exclusively to the shipyards of the Navy. To this end, they have created and are constantly improving the appropriate production base, maintain qualified specialists and have the means to check the technical condition of ships and their weapons. This approach implies increased financial costs. compared to the use of private enterprises, however, ensures the independence of the customer from market conditions. It is believed that this circumstance is the determining for the reliable operation of nuclear submarines, which are the basis of both sea-based nuclear missile forces and the fleet as a whole, therefore, the leadership of the US Navy plans to maintain, for the foreseeable period, on each coast of the country less than three shipyards capable of repairing and upgrade nuclear submarines.
US shipbuilding industry fully stocked with high quality components of own production the entire range of equipment. However, she is also in some cases, uses imported samples. So, for example, radar stations and weapon control systems are purchased in Holland, and individual artillery installations in Italy and Switzerland and in several other countries.
All of the above allows us to state that the United States has the world's largest shipbuilding base. The basis of military shipbuilding is formed by enterprises specializing in the construction of ships of certain classes. Keeping this part of the industry in working condition, despite ongoing cuts in the US Navy, is part of the state policy. Thus, to mitigate the effects of a sharp reduction in orders for warships that took place in the early 1990s, the US Navy entered into a number of contracts for the conversion and construction of new auxiliary vessels in order to keep at major shipyards such as Newport News Shipbuilding, a significant proportion of jobs. According to the US Shipbuilders' Council, these orders allowed for some time to contain the decline in the industry. At the same time, the ability of the Navy and the Department of Defense in general to provide assistance to the shipbuilding industry is limited by the approved military budget, as a result of which some plans to place orders with enterprises in the industry do not ensure the preservation of specialized production facilities. A typical example in this regard is the debate that unfolded around the program for the construction of a new generation nuclear submarine NSSN (New SSN). According to the original plan, the Navy considered it possible to save funds to build this submarine only at the Electric Boat Division shipyard. Thus, the new assembly complex for submarines at the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard, the creation of which in late 1980s it was said above, remained unloaded, probably would have been used by the company for another purpose. At the same time there could be loss of qualified personnel. In order to prevent the degradation of the production base for the construction of nuclear submarines at one of the shipyards, the US Congress rejected the proposed version of the program and allocated additional appropriations for the purchase of two more new nuclear submarines in 1999 and 2001, conditioned this decision by the mandatory placement of orders at the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard.
In general, we can say that at the end of the XX century. there was a sharp strengthening of the military-economic position of the United States. Military procurement in the late 1970s and early 1980s made it possible to postpone large-scale technical re-equipment of armed strength for more than a decade. Given the new tasks and requirements of the Navy, as well as the reduced defense budget, the Ministry of Defense launched an intensive work aimed at restructuring the military sector of the economy in order to adapt it to modern conditions, make it more compact and efficient. The state is making the necessary changes to the legislation governing military procurement. Yes, in 1994. an important law was passed to improve federal procurement. The Department of Defense has been implementing procurement reform for several years, refining the military procurement strategy, reorganizing the system of relevant authorities and introducing more efficient procedures. Mergers are encouraged in some cases and absorption. The US Department of Defense and other government departments are involved in promoting the products of American manufacturers on the world military market. As a result, in recent years, the United States has accounted for about a third of world military spending, almost half of world arms exports, and about two-thirds of military R&D spending. Last thing serves as evidence that the United States seeks maintain and strengthen military-technical superiority over other countries.