Great article Pete. It’s pretty clear that perhaps we need to tweak our processes in order to achieve better results and I’m all for plagiarism if what we are copying will meet our needs.
Icebreakers are normally custom built, but based on elements proven by experience and testing. Using parent designs or copying an early design usually doesn't lead to a good outcome.
On paper, Aker Arctic's Polaris (ARC-130) and the design for the Russian IBs Aleksandr Sannikov and Andrey Vilkitsky (ARC-130 A) might seem to be the same based on shape and design name, but the ARC-130 A was designed specifically for its purpose and is not simply a modified copy of the earlier ARC-130.
Yeah, I'll grant that I don't actually know much about ship design. Well, certainly not icebreakers specifically, anyway. I intended more to mock the concept of *requiring* a "parent design" method, but at least in this case, it would be a ship that has actually been *built*, and can actually, y'know, do its job. Plus, they're about the same size. But I probably should have thrown a winkie " ;) " at the end of that comment. Alas. :D
Actually, that might make a good article, if you can find enough details about the design of the Charcot. Given that they're roughly the same size, and intended to do roughly the same job (I think? I hadn't really thought about icebreakers all that much until I read the article at Construction Physics and then ended up over here), what differences would need to be made in the design of the lower hull? I can see why there would potentially be significant superstructure differences, but would that necessarily reflect itself in significant differences in the part of the ship that actually interfaces with the water / ice?
Again, this is me just sort of flailing wildly and asking potentially quite ignorant questions. Are the different tasks the various ships are doing really so significant that a completely fresh design is required for each one? Does that stem primarily from the fact that there are so few of them?
I mean, I've never designed *any* ship, so for all I know, every surface warship design is completely clean slate too, and the only thing that helps is that we tend to build a giant pile of them, so presumably the shipbuilder actually gets good at a particular design after a while. I imagine America's shipyard are *quite* adept at turning out Arleigh Burkes by now, for example. ;)
Anyway, this comment has gotten absurdly long so I'm going to end it here. :D
Great article Pete. It’s pretty clear that perhaps we need to tweak our processes in order to achieve better results and I’m all for plagiarism if what we are copying will meet our needs.
Well, sweet. If the USCG is requiring a "parent design" process for its new icebreakers, I have an *outstanding* idea for a prime stud here...
Icebreakers are normally custom built, but based on elements proven by experience and testing. Using parent designs or copying an early design usually doesn't lead to a good outcome.
On paper, Aker Arctic's Polaris (ARC-130) and the design for the Russian IBs Aleksandr Sannikov and Andrey Vilkitsky (ARC-130 A) might seem to be the same based on shape and design name, but the ARC-130 A was designed specifically for its purpose and is not simply a modified copy of the earlier ARC-130.
Yeah, I'll grant that I don't actually know much about ship design. Well, certainly not icebreakers specifically, anyway. I intended more to mock the concept of *requiring* a "parent design" method, but at least in this case, it would be a ship that has actually been *built*, and can actually, y'know, do its job. Plus, they're about the same size. But I probably should have thrown a winkie " ;) " at the end of that comment. Alas. :D
Actually, that might make a good article, if you can find enough details about the design of the Charcot. Given that they're roughly the same size, and intended to do roughly the same job (I think? I hadn't really thought about icebreakers all that much until I read the article at Construction Physics and then ended up over here), what differences would need to be made in the design of the lower hull? I can see why there would potentially be significant superstructure differences, but would that necessarily reflect itself in significant differences in the part of the ship that actually interfaces with the water / ice?
Again, this is me just sort of flailing wildly and asking potentially quite ignorant questions. Are the different tasks the various ships are doing really so significant that a completely fresh design is required for each one? Does that stem primarily from the fact that there are so few of them?
I mean, I've never designed *any* ship, so for all I know, every surface warship design is completely clean slate too, and the only thing that helps is that we tend to build a giant pile of them, so presumably the shipbuilder actually gets good at a particular design after a while. I imagine America's shipyard are *quite* adept at turning out Arleigh Burkes by now, for example. ;)
Anyway, this comment has gotten absurdly long so I'm going to end it here. :D