that is awesome
I bet that was a sphincter-tightener for the operators........
You mean [a needle couldn't driven up their *** with a sledge hammer].
I'm sure they crunched the numbers and did a full cost analysis and I know this is common in shipyards now days, but with the risk (eight cranes), the extremely low margin for error, having to partially dismantle an assembly building, and other complications we didn't see, one would think they were approaching the point of diminishing returns.
Building as many chunks on the ground usually pays for all the extra hassles. I chased big cranes for awhile when coal plants were mandated to have scrubbers installed. A couple of engineers got the idea that if you had a big enough crane you could build the scrubber on the ground and then lift it complete to the top of the plant and just set it in place. The cost savings were in time and safety issues. A few crane guys started buying up 600 ton and larger crawler cranes with luffing jibs and wheel horses and hundreds if not thousands of tons of counterweights. This all started in the Clinton years with the ever increasing assault on coal burning. The trend was starting to hit hard on the plants as they had put off making major changes that would put them under the new regulations and they were running out of time. Contracts were signed and production was started on several plants across the country in around 1999 to 2000. Well Bush got elected president and threw out all the scrubber regulations and several huge crane and rigging companies were caught with big payments on all that giant iron. I bounced around the country for about a year and a half looking for and at giant Demag cranes. I would bet using all the cranes for that pick probably saved several huge rock trucks full of paper money compared to either building that superstructure on top of the hull or going with one or two huge crawler cranes.
I suppose the other thing to consider is how often you have to do an operation like that versus the cost of upgrading/upsizing your assembly building facilities.
Looks like they built it expecting the end to come off every year or so.
I think the big advantage was being able to build inside, vs. outside. Work rain or shine, 24 hrs if you need to . Pulling the end off the building for a one shot deal didn't look that bad. I did a six crane pick once, but the cranes weren't near that big. We were transferring a big press on a trailer. The most difficult thing, would be when they were fitting to the boat, when they had to boom up and boom down together. Moving the boat port to starboard so to speak, to match up to the hull. Everyone swinging left or right together isn't bad. Trying to boom up on one side while the guys on the other side were booming down and all staying level wouldn't have been a lot of fun.
I've seen picks like that setup with an engineer and a transit. Each crane pad is in the exact spot as marked. Boom angles are prescribed and the hull run out on the rails. All the cranes had to do was pull in the line and pay it out when the hull arrived. Capstans on the hull deck would do the inching when everything came down close.
It’s something of a surprise to me that an Australian company can compete with Korean(etc) shipyards to build boats like this. It looks like they are also building some combat ships for the US Navy. https://www.austal.com/news/austal-australia-rolls-out-118-metre-trimaran-fred-olsen-express
The ships for our Navy are built in Mobile Ala. They have a Shipyard there
I will see your 8 crane pic, and raise you to a 16 crane pick here in New Zealand last year. I was not involved in this project, nor do I work for the main crane contractor pictured, but one of our cranes was there on the day. Photo credit: Auckland Cranes Facebook page
The first two concept ships were built in Hobart, Tasmania............ https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hsv-2-swift/ I happened to see HSV-2 in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic a few years ago. It was so distinctive that I went looking for information about it. Turns out it is a sister to the high speed ferry that operates between my place and the UK that originally started life as HSV-1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Manannan After proof of concept the manufacture of the range of littoral combat ships has apparently been moved to the US.
US Navy ships are built by anyone who wins a bid to build them. A lot of the odd ball ships are built in Mobile, Alabama and Pascagoula, Mississippi. Amphibs, helicopter carriers, patrol boats and even Higgins boats have been built there. Aircraft carriers and surface nuclear ships were usually build in NewPort News, Virginia. Subs were built in Connecticut. The littoral combat ships I've heard were built all over the world. They have been seen as a failure in concept, design, application and mission. That's not a reflection on the people who built them. More a problem with a congress that feeds money to their constituency instead of letting the Navy request and design for its actual needs.