Re: Why superships cost more per mass

As I said, if you're building ships bigger than
you have ever built, there is extra r&d and
lots of hidden pitfalls. This is not true if you're
building further copies of a ship that has already
been built once in a size that is a known quantity.

I'll bet the Ticonderoga was considerably more of
a job than say the Hornet of WWII because carriers
were already fairly common then, whereas the 
Ticonderoga was the first Aegis ship with the spy
1 radar and the combat information center designed
to control a carrier fleet. Point is that big ships
don't necessarily mean more complexity than small
ones.

Plus what makes you think FT ships are constructed
with a big workforce? Even now robots almost
completely
construct some cars and computers, maybe the shipyards
are highly automated. So managing a big workforce may
not be a problem. 

I don't know much about the Canadian navy, but if
they were working on a class of ship they're used
to working on, and they weren't trying to do anything
they hadn't done before, then I don't think size
would have that much to do with their overruns.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail