WesWorld

Having gone through another round of what I think of as improvements for the Philippine Navy, I thought it worthwhile to explain the thinking behind my decisions.

When I assumed playing the Philippines it was right after the conclusion of the South China Sea War, a conflict in which the Philippine Navy had perhaps broken even, but which it saw as a failure and defeat -  the ostensible objective of the war not having been attained. It was also left with a fleet built up to act, so it seemed to me, as part of a SATSUMA invasion force aimed at the Dutch East Indies. With the Philippine withdrawal from SATSUMA, and the subsequent war with China, its strategic orientation and force composition needed to change. The run-up to the South China Sea War had also saddled the Philippine Navy with a motley collection of vessels bought second or third hand from several foreign navies; ships that were old, in need of refit, and of questionable utility. Clearing this mass of obsolescent shipping from the books was also a priority.

Hence my decision to establish a baseline building program, which took the form of the Fleet Replenishment Act of 1941 - four armored cruisers, four light cruisers and sixteen destroyers, aimed at defending the Philippines from possible Chinese attacks, and eight minesweepers and the first modern motor torpedo boats, with which to patrol the archipelago. Building these took time -  the last of the armored cruisers is yet to complete - and it was expensive, which prompted the fire sale of major Philippine units during 1941 and 1942. What I may have sold away as one-off heavy units I feel I will make up in having a homogenous surface force of modern construction.

I was aggressive in my scrapping and disposal program, in-game the Philippine shipbreaking industry has gained great experience. Realistically, disposing of the older vessels made their crews available for use elsewhere, reduced the sheer mass of small patrol craft to something manageable, and the proceeds continued to pay for more construction than my annual production would normally allow. To compensate, I significantly expanded the Navy's shore-based aviation assets; to my mind, waters as extensive as the Philippines can only be patrolled from the air, with surface units performing interception.

I carried these ideas further with the Supplementary Fleet Replenishment Act and the Emergency Fleet Replenishment Act, both in 1942, which covered two more light cruisers, eight destroyers, four modern submarines, eight more minesweepers and four amphibious ships, plus refitting four heavy cruisers. This was prompted by China's continued construction and acquisition of vessels from abroad - including the two battleships procured from Peru. I have no doubt that some of our members considered me daft for disposing of capital units when my potential enemy was acquiring them, but I firmly believe that a homogeneous surface force can adequately defend its territory against a collection of one-or-two offs.

The Naval Augmentation and Replenishment Act of 1943 saw further planned construction - four light cruisers of improved design, eight more destroyers, four sloops, eight more submarines and eight patrol combatants, which would cover most of 1944 and 1945. I have deliberately kept my light cruisers small  I cannot afford to build them much bigger and still keep the numbers up, and while they could never toe the line against European super cruisers, they are intended to face Chinese surface units in night actions, the sort of engagements seen in the South China Sea War. When the destroyers planned under this program are complete, it will give the Philippine Navy four flotillas of modern destroyers - sixteen Pinatubos and sixteen Catanauans - to defend the approaches to Luzon from the north. The twelve submarines of the Cazador class, equipped with snorts, are well suited to lying in wait for any potential invasion force.

The most recent round of proposed refits, which will be covered by the Naval Reconstruction Act of 1944, is made possible by the tapering off of construction of the big Visayas class armored cruisers and continuing disposals. The ships to be refitted - the battlecruiser Mindanao, the cruisers of the Poro and Ticao classes, and the Aquila and Piquero class destroyers - are ones that fit with my concept of a defensive fleet. I opted for relatively cheap refits for the Poro and Ticao rather than a major reconstruction simply on economic grounds. They are more lightly armed than I would like, and their features are less than I would want myself, but they are still serviceable.

What might be next? There are relatively few large units left  and while I expect that the Philippine Navy will defend its territory in any future conflict  it is keeping its carrier force at the present level. Refits there are likely to come in future years. Depending upon the outcome of the present conflict between China and Chosen, I might dispose of some of the odd-ball capital units remaining. New construction is probably going to be oriented towards lighter units  perhaps a large destroyer leader type in the 3,000 to 4,000 ton range. I do not anticipate a big program of auxiliaries, as the Philippine Navy would be fighting close to home. Expanding the infrastructure to support the fleet would come first.

Questions anyone?

How is your infrastructure in terms of availabilty and suitable size? I know Bharat will be doing a bit of expansion as destroyers grow past the 120 m threshold...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
How is your infrastructure in terms of availabilty and suitable size? I know Bharat will be doing a bit of expansion as destroyers grow past the 120 m threshold...

Ah, there is the rub. To build mid-range combatants in any appreciable numbers I would need to expand some of my smaller slips and docks. That is why the Philippine DD force maxes out is size at 120m.

That said, I have a number of rather large docks that could, in theory, construct two ships at a time, so long as I'm not building large vessels in them.

I foresee infrastructure upgrades from 1946 or so forward, depending on the international situation.

IMO,

1- Quantity & size of the shipyards decides the Plan.
2- Have the same speed for combat ships.
3- High recoil for combat ships to have powerful ships on moderate displacement.
4- Reuse semi old barbettes/turrets to save IC in the Plan.
5- Have more medium combats ships, not a few big one.


Jef

Can't say I agree with #1. Infrastructure isn't a static thing; it has to escalate as ship size does, otherwise one stagnates.

For a nation with a very small industrial base, such as Peru, expansion of naval infrastructure is a near luxury, unless one defers a substantial amount of naval construction. In Peru's case, the infrastructure very much defines and limits the naval construction that can be carried out.

In the case of a nation with a moderate industrial base - such as the Philippines - it is possible to expand existing docks and slips while maintaining a reasonable construction rate. The question is balancing the one against the other. I inherited a half-built floating drydock and deferred its completion until I could afford it; for repairs or refits it is a useful tool. Eventually though I will need to consider construction of new docks and slips or the extension of existing ones. When and how is the question I am looking at, but the planned refits suggest that funds will not be available until some time in 1946.

Quoted

...In the case of a nation with a moderate industrial base - such as the Philippines - it is possible to expand existing docks and slips while maintaining a reasonable construction rate...

I agree with medium nation, of course, increase infrastructures are possible but;

IC for infrastructures are lost for Warships...

Jef

Quoted

Originally posted by Jefgte

Quoted

...In the case of a nation with a moderate industrial base - such as the Philippines - it is possible to expand existing docks and slips while maintaining a reasonable construction rate...

I agree with medium nation, of course, increase infrastructures are possible but;

IC for infrastructures are lost for Warships...

Jef

Building more warships than one can reasonably support in the long term is just wasteful.

I play Yugoslavia, with only two factories and very little in the way of infrastructure. It has been a challenge to do so, even with the proceeds from a lot of ship sales and scrapping. It means building ships for specific missions, not just to look good, or merely to keep up with the neighbors.

Within those limits I actually did expand my infrastructure - it was necessary to gain some domestic construction capacity - but I also built abroad. That is one option a smaller nation has.

Peru has had some of its larger units built abroad - a number of light cruisers were built in German yards.

Infrastructure is a difficult matter, it's relatively expensive, and frequently underutilized. With the growth in electronics,

As for the large combatants, I presumed it was a combination of cost of upgrades/replacements, changing mission, and a dose of the common 'its the 1940s, carriers are king' recurrent theme.

However, at 11 factories, the Philippines have always had potential for a decently sized navy. I've been trying to do forecasts, presuming 20-30 year vessel life, with 5% and 25% refits at intervals, then scrapping, and come up with ~850t/Q/factory I can devote to ships. Even if you only devote 9 factories, that comes over 600,000tons of navy.

Also, while China is the obvious most recent spat, it's the only one you discuss. With Indochina heading for independence, the old animosity with the Iberians on San HiananDo, the Brits in Sarawak, and oil flowing from Tarakan on Dutch Borneo they should all matter...so I'm presuming that not talking about them means they aren't foreseen as a problem?

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Building more warships than one can reasonably support in the long term is just wasteful.

I play Yugoslavia, with only two factories and very little in the way of infrastructure. It has been a challenge to do so, even with the proceeds from a lot of ship sales and scrapping. It means building ships for specific missions, not just to look good, or merely to keep up with the neighbors.

Within those limits I actually did expand my infrastructure - it was necessary to gain some domestic construction capacity - but I also built abroad. That is one option a smaller nation has.

I've done the same thing in both Ireland and Bulgaria - two and three factories apiece. To date, I've spent (or committed to spending) 2 IP on developing Irish infrastructure; and by the end of 1944, I'll have spent 2.5 IP on Bulgarian infrastructure. The rationale in both cases was simple: the infrastructure I had did not allow me to build and maintain the ships that I had or desired.

In every case, while I sometimes look at what my neighbors or perspective enemies are building, I always design my navies to accomplish a mission, rather than to merely swell numbers. It's one of the reasons I think so poorly of Wesworld's Collect-a-Navies: there is no analysis of needs or missions, just an unthinking, almost animalistic hunger to add another set of numbers to a list in the belief that people will look at it and take that force more seriously.

That's why I like what Bruce's done with the Philippines. He's taken a Collect-a-Navy (albeit one better planned than many) and turned it into a much more dangerous and capable force.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Also, while China is the obvious most recent spat, it's the only one you discuss. With Indochina heading for independence, the old animosity with the Iberians on San HiananDo, the Brits in Sarawak, and oil flowing from Tarakan on Dutch Borneo they should all matter...so I'm presuming that not talking about them means they aren't foreseen as a problem?

The short answer is yes... but there is far more to it.

It starts with the change of government in Manila. The 'revolution' was an overthrow of the heirs of the revolutionaries of 1898 in favor of the old, landed Principalia , those families who had been supporters of the Iberian regime prior to 1898. While they are happy to be in charge of things and have no intention of calling back the colonial power, they have no animosity towards the Iberians in San Hainando, and are indeed making overtures towards improving relations with Iberia.

As for France, and by extension, Indochina, the Philippines does not see any particular point of conflict on the horizon. France was helpful in brokering the Treaty of Saigon which, while the current Philippine government would not admit it, ended the South China Sea war on terms generally favorable to the Philippines. France has been helpful in the supply of military equipment - together with other nations - to modernize Philippine defenses.

France, Indochina, Iberia and the Philippines share, to one degree or another, an apprehension of Chinese expansionism; how those views will be tempered by the final outcome of the current hostilities with Chosen remain to be seen. The South China Sea war left a deep impression on the Philippine people, who have had reason to be concerned about China for a long time. It is unfortunate that one of the chief actions of the South China Sea war was the Chinese carrier raid on Subic and Olongopo, an action which the Philippines sees as having occurred during a time of truce, which resulted in the bombing of significant civilian targets.

As for the Dutch East Indies, I cannot say that the Philippines sees them as an active threat; it feels that the pragmatic Dutch would prefer to hold on to their possessions rather than try to increase them by aggression. The same can be said for the British; their capture of Manila during the Seven Years War was a fluke and very short-lived, and they have not many any aggressive moves toward the Philippines in living memory. Besides, from the Philippine point of view, any British action east of Suez rests on very tenuous lines of communication, as movement beyond the Malay Barrier is dependent upon the cooperation of the Netherlands authorities.

Realistically, should Japan ever threaten the Philippines, no naval force the Philippines alone could muster could resist; it would merely be a matter of how large Philippine losses were. Fortunately, Japan has not shown itself to be very aggressive, despite saber-rattling in the days of SATSUMA. That alliance now lies in tatters, with Bharat and the Philippines having left it, and two of the three remaining members fighting each other.

So yes, for the Philippines, the threat posed by China - with its ever-growing collection of ships from around the world - is its major concern and the foe by which it measures its needs.

Brock & you are perfectly right:

Add:

7- Neighbours attitudes (Expansionist, Friendly or not).
8- Fleet compositions of these potential enemies.
9- The geography of the zone (archipelagoes need more light fast unities than continental coast).



...in complement with
1- for your economy & NavalPlan
2-3-4-5 for SS

Jef

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
It's one of the reasons I think so poorly of Wesworld's Collect-a-Navies: there is no analysis of needs or missions, just an unthinking, almost animalistic hunger to add another set of numbers to a list in the belief that people will look at it and take that force more seriously.

On a tangent, I'm wondering if the RCN falls under that analysis.

Quoted

On a tangent, I'm wondering if the RCN falls under that analysis.

Perhaps new Peruvian projects too...

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
It's one of the reasons I think so poorly of Wesworld's Collect-a-Navies: there is no analysis of needs or missions, just an unthinking, almost animalistic hunger to add another set of numbers to a list in the belief that people will look at it and take that force more seriously.

On a tangent, I'm wondering if the RCN falls under that analysis.

As I told you the last time you asked, I don't believe the RCN is a Collect-a-Navy. You've limited your acquisitions to ships which make sense for the roles you've set out, you update or refit them to match your objectives, and discard when necessary - in other words, you're not blinded by the numbers. If I thought the RCN was a Collect-a-Navy, I'd have to level the same charge against Chile - which, I believe, has certainly acquired more secondhand ships from more varied sources than Canada has.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
As I told you the last time you asked

My mind is blanking, but I've been very distracted lately. Ah, well.

Here, have a thing;

And maybe mine is, too - I've been shorting myself on a bit too much sleep since I started working again.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan


So yes, for the Philippines, the threat posed by China - with its ever-growing collection of ships from around the world - is its major concern and the foe by which it measures its needs.

Interesting and decently thought out overall.

One aspect the Philippines has going for it is better access to China's SLOC than China has to yours. Oil, Rubber, Tin, Mica (radios), Bauxite and other resources can all pretty easily flow from the East Indies to the Philippines behind the Sulu Archepelago, as can supplies from Australia. Supplies from America are fairly safe from raiding as well.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Interesting and decently thought out overall.

One aspect the Philippines has going for it is better access to China's SLOC than China has to yours. Oil, Rubber, Tin, Mica (radios), Bauxite and other resources can all pretty easily flow from the East Indies to the Philippines behind the Sulu Archepelago, as can supplies from Australia. Supplies from America are fairly safe from raiding as well.

At the moment, the composition of the Chinese fleet makes estimation of the likeliest threat difficult, but in terms of commerce-raiding or submarine warfare, China is at a disadvantage in attacking Philippine SLOCs. The latest batch of very large Chinese submarines suggest the possibility of operating in the mid-Pacific, but that is not seen as the greatest potential threat from China.

The growing amphibious assault potential of China is seen as a major threat. If China were ever to establishment a beachhead on Luzon it would be extremely difficult to throw them back. This same threat applies to San Hainando, Indochina and Borneo, a point Philippine diplomats are quick to remind their counterparts about.

Affordable coast defenses, mobile forces for a defense in depth and air power can only do so much. If that scenario were ever to play out it would be the primary duty of the Philippine Navy to engage the invasion force en route and sink as many transports as possible; if necessary sacrificing itself.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
The growing amphibious assault potential of China is seen as a major threat. If China were ever to establishment a beachhead on Luzon it would be extremely difficult to throw them back. This same threat applies to San Hainando, Indochina and Borneo, a point Philippine diplomats are quick to remind their counterparts about.

That is a factor that Indochina has noted as they start the development of their own naval forces, but they regrettably lack the resources that the Philippines has for defense. The result, at least for the moment, is that Indochina is concentrating on littoral and riverine defenses (MTBs and river gunboats) while allowing the Marine Nationale to maintain heavy units for blue-water operations.

To some extent, this addresses Kirk's question about whether an independent Indochina might be seen by the Philippines as a threat. The PNI has just one warship larger than a thousand tons, and the rest of their ships are small coastal combatants. It would take quite a feat of arms for 90% of the PNI's fleet to even reach the Philippines... much less return.