WesWorld

The Fleet Replenishment Act of 1941, also know as the Four-Four Fleet Program, continues to be the basic guidance for the reconstruction of the Philippine Navy.

The first pair of the four armored cruisers ordered under the program will complete during 1943, and the fourth will be laid down in the final quarter of 1942; thus all four units are projected to be fully operational by the close of 1945. It is too early to be certain but it is unlikely that further armored cruisers will be ordered.

The first pair of light cruisers ordered under the program will complete their trials and working up in the fourth quarter of 1942, while the second pair is under construction and are expected to fully operational by the end of 1943. The design of the Surigao class is considered to be quite suitable for Philippine conditions, and it is likely that at least two more units will be constructed, if not four. The latter is conditioned by available resources and the international situation.

Sixteen destroyers of the Pinatubo class were projected under the program – twelve have been laid down to date, with two following in the fourth quarter of 1942 and the last paid in the first quarter of 1943. The first units will soon pass into operational status, and will be followed at regular intervals by their sisters. The design is considered to be a match for contemporary foreign vessels, though the gun armament is lighter perhaps. It is probable that the design will be perpetuated in its original or in modified form; while maintaining numbers might suggest the need for a smaller, less capable vessel, the Pinatubo design is capable of weathering the typhoons that are prone to strike Philippine waters far better than smaller ships.

Supplementing the vessels projected under the Four-Four Fleet Program are the eight minesweeper/escorts of the Colorado class – all of which have passed into service and the four amphibious transports of the Danao class, the last of which will be ordered in the fourth quarter of 1942. The minesweepers were constructed to replace the wholly obsolescent fleet of submarine chasers and patrol craft inherited from prior years, and the transports constructed to replace a heterogeneous collection of large transports of questionable utility. A useful Motor Torpedo Boat design has been developed and is an integral part of the construction plan – twenty-four units have been constructed thus far and it is anticipated that additional vessels will follow at the rate of four per quarter.

Much of the current construction has been funded through scrapping of obsolescent vessels, or the sale of units abroad. This is likely to continue, though at a reduced pace. Their replacement by a homogeneous force of modern vessels equipped with the latest weapons and combat systems offsets the decline in numbers.

Future requirements:

As noted, it is probable that the Philippine Navy will continue to construct light cruisers of the Surigao class, or an improved version thereof, and further vessels of the Pinatubo class.

Other needs identified thus far are:

(1) Additional minesweeper/escort craft of modern design fitted with antisubmarine detection equipment

(2) Sea-going submarines to replace the aging boats of the submarine force

Longer-range, a decision will need to be made on whether further heavy units are required – necessitating drafting of a design to succeed the Visayas class armored cruiser – or whether priority should be given to refitting the Basilan class heavy cruisers.


Strategic vision:

The Philippine Navy presently focuses on the threat posed by the expanding Imperial Chinese Navy, which has strengthened its conventional surface forces though foreign purchase and is rapidly expanding its amphibious transport capability. The Chinese threat is seen not in the disputed Spratley Islands, but a direct threat emanating from Formosa aimed at Luzon. To defend against that possibility the decision has been taken to fortify the Batan Islands, thicken coastal defenses and redeploy the available surface forces to strike at potential invasion convoys if required. While heavy reliance has been placed on increased air patrols to detect, and air strike to deter, such movements, maintenance of heavy forces in the northern sea frontiers demands a thinning of forces to the south and west.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Longer-range, a decision will need to be made on whether further heavy units are required – necessitating drafting of a design to succeed the Visayas class armored cruiser – or whether priority should be given to refitting the Basilan class heavy cruisers.

My preference - albeit as an avowed enthusiast of heavy cruisers - would be for the latter. The Basilans are pretty decent ships, and I think they could benefit quite a lot from an extensive refit. Although it would be very interesting to contemplate what sort of heavier unit would originate from the Philippines...

Hmm...

The last time I looked at the Basilans I thought them to be a very powerful design but very finely balanced. I'm not certain how much refitting would be possible with them; sitting down with Springsharp would tell.

If the Philippines opted for a new battlecruiser design - I wouldn't see it going larger than 35,000 tons or so. Given the time to build such a vessel, that is not the likelier option at this point in time, but one worth investigating before making a hard and fast conclusion.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Although it would be very interesting to contemplate what sort of heavier unit would originate from the Philippines...

Hmm...

Well, IF the Philippine Navy decided to construct further heavy units, the following might be their starting point in the design process. Call it a first appoximation...

Design Proposal, Philippine Battlecruiser laid down 1944

Displacement: 32,400 t light; 34,135 t standard; 37,713 t normal; 40,575 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

813.02 ft / 793.96 ft x 91.21 ft (Bulges 97.77 ft) x 32.15 ft (normal load) [247.81 m / 242.00 m x 27.80 m (Bulges 29.80 m) x 9.80 m]

Armament:

9 - 12.60" / 320 mm guns (3x3 guns), 999.81lbs / 453.51kg shells, 1944 Model Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes) on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (6x2 guns), 46.40lbs / 21.05kg shells, 1944 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
56 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (16 mounts), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread
32 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (16x2 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 9,632 lbs / 4,369 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 180

Armour:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.84" / 250 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 12.30 ft / 3.75 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 95 % of normal length

Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges: 1.18" / 30 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 27.56 ft / 8.40 m

Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.6" / 320 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 12.6" / 320 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -
3rd: 0.51" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.51" / 13 mm - -

Armour deck: 5.31" / 135 mm, Conning tower: 10.63" / 270 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 194,227 shp / 144,893 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,440 tons

Complement: 1,353 - 1,759

Cost: £19.103 million / $76.414 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 1,204 tons, 3.2 %
Armour: 10,898 tons, 28.9 %
- Belts: 2,536 tons, 6.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 593 tons, 1.6 %
- Armament: 2,442 tons, 6.5 %
- Armour Deck: 5,070 tons, 13.4 %
- Conning Tower: 258 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 4,960 tons, 13.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,938 tons, 39.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,313 tons, 14.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 53,158 lbs / 24,112 Kg = 53.2 x 12.6 " / 320 mm shells or 7.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 5.2 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 18.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has a flush deck and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.529
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.12 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.59 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.30 ft / 1.01 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 39.00 ft / 11.89 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 27.70 ft / 8.44 m
- Mid (40 %): 21.50 ft / 6.55 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 21.50 ft / 6.55 m
- Stern: 21.50 ft / 6.55 m
- Average freeboard: 24.42 ft / 7.44 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 163.3 %
Waterplane Area: 51,561 Square feet or 4,790 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 191 lbs/sq ft or 935 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.07
- Longitudinal: 1.41
- Overall: 1.10
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

I decided to take a stab at a different sort of proposal altogether. Starting from the point of view that "speed costs", I set up a sort of proposal similar to the OTL French Dunkerques - an economic fast battleship intended to be a counter to the ex-Peruvian ex-South African battleships that China is acquiring.

Quoted

[SIZE=3]FB-1944, Proposed Fast Battleship laid down 1944[/SIZE]

Displacement:
31,878 t light; 33,453 t standard; 37,744 t normal; 41,177 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
803.81 ft / 803.81 ft x 95.14 ft x 29.53 ft (normal load)
245.00 m / 245.00 m x 29.00 m x 9.00 m

Armament:
9 - 13.39" / 340 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,400.00lbs / 635.03kg shells, 1944 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (6x2 guns), 46.40lbs / 21.05kg shells, 1944 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
56 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (14x4 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
32 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (16x2 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1944 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 13,233 lbs / 6,003 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.4" / 340 mm 524.93 ft / 160.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 524.93 ft / 160.00 m 29.53 ft / 9.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 11.8" / 300 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
4th: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

- Armour deck: 5.51" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 13.78" / 350 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 95,281 shp / 71,079 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,725 tons

Complement:
1,353 - 1,760

Cost:
£17.869 million / $71.475 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,428 tons, 3.8 %
Armour: 13,442 tons, 35.6 %
- Belts: 3,911 tons, 10.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 903 tons, 2.4 %
- Armament: 2,434 tons, 6.4 %
- Armour Deck: 5,860 tons, 15.5 %
- Conning Tower: 334 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,433 tons, 6.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,175 tons, 37.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,866 tons, 15.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
73,787 lbs / 33,469 Kg = 61.5 x 13.4 " / 340 mm shells or 12.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.70
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.41

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.585
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.48 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 22.51 ft / 6.86 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 65.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 171.5 %
Waterplane Area: 57,465 Square feet or 5,339 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 125 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 178 lbs/sq ft or 867 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.15
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Does a speed of 28 knots qualify as "fast" in WesWorld?

Her barbet armor seems to be a tad bit thin...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Does a speed of 28 knots qualify as "fast" in WesWorld?

I wouldn't have any qualms at all about designating it a fast battleship, particularly as I still think of the Queen Elizabeths as fast battleships.

I think Super CAs or large CAs would be better for the Phillippines, less drain on resources yet still offering some potental to cause enemy headaches.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I think Super CAs or large CAs would be better for the Phillippines, less drain on resources yet still offering some potental to cause enemy headaches.

Perhaps. I must admit that I do love all my cruisers. Even so, I'm looking at the prospective opposition in theater, and anticipating what missions and roles need filling.

With China having one 9x30cm Dairen, building those 6x28cm Prince-class cruisers, and finally buying the 10x35cm Peruvian Emperors, that's a pretty decent force of big gun ships. Some of the Filipino ships are roughly similar to the Chinese fast ships, but I don't see anything in the Filipino arsenal that could scare the devil out of the new old battleships. And although I like the 9x12.6" BC proposed above, it doesn't seem a credible opponent to the old BBs.

For that reason, I worked on a slower, more heavily-armed, better-protected fast battleship that could be that Credible Opponent.

Britain could propose such a vessel as this. A bit fast than Brock's but offering more punch and better armour.

Philippine Battlcruiser, Great Britain Battlecruiser laid down 1944

Displacement:
32,376 t light; 34,191 t standard; 36,508 t normal; 38,361 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
725.64 ft / 720.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 30.60 ft (normal load)
221.18 m / 219.46 m x 32.92 m x 9.33 m

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,938.00lbs / 879.06kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (6x2 guns), 46.40lbs / 21.05kg shells, 1944 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
32 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1944 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 16,105 lbs / 7,305 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 415.00 ft / 126.49 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 89 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.50" / 64 mm 415.00 ft / 126.49 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.25" / 6 mm -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 108,000 shp / 80,568 Kw = 29.03 kts
Range 8,500nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,171 tons

Complement:
1,319 - 1,716

Cost:
£20.181 million / $80.724 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,763 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 12,896 tons, 35.3 %
- Belts: 3,626 tons, 9.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,036 tons, 2.8 %
- Armament: 2,414 tons, 6.6 %
- Armour Deck: 5,677 tons, 15.6 %
- Conning Tower: 142 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 2,758 tons, 7.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,585 tons, 40.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,131 tons, 11.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 375 tons, 1.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
56,740 lbs / 25,737 Kg = 33.6 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 6.9 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.537
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.55 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 21.28 ft / 6.49 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.9 %
Waterplane Area: 55,798 Square feet or 5,184 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 963 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.43
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent


Deck Armour: Main deck 5in with a 0.5in splinter deck below joining to the bottom of the main belt
Torpedo Bulkheads: triple bottom, quadruple side bulkhead system air/ fuel/ fuel/ air with backing bulkheads of 0.5in/ 1in/ 0.5in and 0.5in

Not a bad design in the same general vein - in many ways, better protected, and naturally better-armed. Sorta "Mini-Vanguard" perhaps...

I chose 340mm because the Filipinos already have some ships armed with it (coast defense ships); and Perdedor arranged for Chilean arsenal to supply them with shells and spares. Otherwise, I'd probably have preferred a 15" gun, myself.

Be careful, Brock. Hood used the 15"/45 Mark II (OTL projected for KGV as gun design 15C, IIRC) for his design, not the well known 15"/42 Mark I. Different gun, different bore, different shell.... ;o)

Those super-heavy 38cm projectiles are the heaviest known to me - and combined with a barrel length of 45 calibers that will make a very powerful gun. But wear and tear might be an issue, tho.... As the Filipinos cannot afford a failure of the gun (OTL design never completed, never built, never tested) I think they would be better of with something a bit less radical.

Otherwise Hoods design is quite powerful for its size - the reason most likely being the very low block coefficient used. Allows for other specs to be tweaked in her favor.

Do you think a bc of 0,537 is realistic for a BB like this?

The biggest issue I have with the design is her rather weak barbet armor. She has four barbets after all, making a decent target area...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Be careful, Brock. Hood used the 15"/45 Mark II (OTL projected for KGV as gun design 15C, IIRC) for his design, not the well known 15"/42 Mark I. Different gun, different bore, different shell.... ;o)

True. I had been looking at pictures of Vanguard about a half hour before, so I made a mental connection.

Quite frankly, given the construction time required for a ship of 30,000-plus tons, it is highly unlikely that the Philippine Navy will choose to attempt to match the Chinese hull-to-hull; far better to adopt an asymmetric strategy. But the designs are interesting.

It's the same gun used in the Victorious and Saint Vincents. Triple mounts just mucked the whole design up.

Still its nice for those designers to stretch their ideas a little and make these fanciful schemes.