You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.


Friday, March 10th 2006, 9:12am

CV Siboney rebuild

Due to the accelerated pace of the sim I didn't get around to writing an news post reguarding Siboney's planned rebuild into a training carrier.

Here is the design, cost is 11 months (7 quarters) and 6,443 tons of materials.

Siboney, Atlantean training carrier Carrier laid down 1918

12,613 t light; 12,886 t standard; 13,653 t normal; 14,267 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
547.45 ft / 545.00 ft x 64.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
166.86 m / 166.12 m x 19.51 m x 6.10 m


- Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 18,514 shp / 13,811 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 6,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,381 tons

630 - 820

£1.070 million / $4.280 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 37 tons, 0.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 37 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 668 tons, 4.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,208 tons, 82.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,040 tons, 7.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 700 tons, 5.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
75,116 lbs / 34,072 Kg = 695.5 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 10.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
Metacentric height 2.8 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 16.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.685
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.52 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Stern: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Average freeboard: 26.27 ft / 8.01 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 23.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 216.8 %
Waterplane Area: 27,584 Square feet or 2,563 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 659 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 238 lbs/sq ft or 1,164 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 2.60
- Longitudinal: 6.44
- Overall: 2.84
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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, rides out heavy weather easily

550 tons for new structures (island, mock weapons platforms and 1 catapult)
50 tons for aircraft workshop
60 tons for trainee accomidations
30 tons for training personell accomodations
10 tons for aviation fuel


Friday, March 10th 2006, 9:39am

almost two years for a downgrade? Am I missing something?


Friday, March 10th 2006, 9:46am

From my interpritation she would fall under the following rebuild clasification...

Level 4: Partial Reconstruction (cost = 50%)

-Changes to bunkerage (type or quantity): P
-Replacement of superstructure: P
-Changes to internal belt armor: P (upper), D (ends, main)
-Changes to deck armor: P
-Replacement of secondary turrets with new secondary turrets: P
-Changes to secondary (or tertiary) barbettes (addition, change of caliber, change to armor or capacity, replacement with bunkerage): P
-Replacement of secondary barbettes with powerplant machinery: D
-Removal of main gun turret (barbette plated over and possibly covered): P
-Change to powerplant (type and output): D
-Change to bow form: D
-Change to trim of ship: D
-Change to torpedo bulkheads: D

That would mean 50% of her build time from scratch and 50% of her materials due to her orriginal speed being reduced from 21.5 knots to 20 knots and her superstructure being radically altered.

Most of her orriginal hangar is converted to classrooms and accomidations, an Island, fake weapons sponsons and funnel have also been added in order to simulate the other CV's in service as much as possible.

The new building rules are being used here....


Friday, March 10th 2006, 9:58am

Is the ship being re-engined, or are some of the boilers just being incapacitated? If it's the latter, I'd assume it'd be a lot easier to make a ship slower, than make it faster (which the rules are probably more geared towards)

either way, I guess the shipyards have a really good union...


Friday, March 10th 2006, 11:27am

Well I sure would love to do the convertion at a cheaper cost and get her back in service sooner but...


-Change to powerplant (type and output): D

This falls under the level 4 build rules, thus 50%.

If it was .5 knots I could argue that due to her age shes barely able to maintain the required 20 knots but shes a full 1.5 knots faster than the limits.

I don't think fouling of the ships bottom or machinery wear would drop her speed by that much but.....


Friday, March 10th 2006, 12:28pm

Accually there is an error, 50% of the build time is acctually half of what I stated (21 months) which is 9 months standard plus 1 month for each 1,000 tons.

The build time would be 11.6 months or slightly under a year.


Thursday, April 13th 2006, 7:29pm

I think the assumption in the WW rules is that a new engine is being fitted, thus giving the opportunity to save tonnage/space in the ship (or fit more horsepower into the same or larger space, in the case of an upgrade, as opposed to a downgrade). If, however, all you're doing is taking a cutting torch and removing a boiler and it's steam lines from the ship (ie, what the CT calls "mutilation"), then the operation should become much easier (since no new material is being used at all, other than the caps for the cut steam-lines).


Thursday, April 13th 2006, 7:46pm

It would likely be the latter, shes a fairly old ship so it wouldn't make much sence to add new machinery when downgrading her status.


Thursday, April 13th 2006, 7:54pm

Depending on how worn out her machinery is, and your future plans for her, it might or might not make sense to replace her engines entirely.


Thursday, April 13th 2006, 8:15pm

With a max air group of 16 planes I doubt shes really worth the effort to convert back to a carrier. She's 12 years old so I suppose the level of wear on her machinery is not too high.

I'm also able to build another training carrier under the revised CT rules which could turn out to be a slightly smaller, unarmored Alioth design.

She's 12 years old so I suppose the level of wear on her machinery is not too high.

I'm getting the sence you think she's valuable enough to have her machinery replaced, I might examine the rebuild plans again.


Thursday, April 13th 2006, 8:31pm

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that in some circumstances it would make sense to replace a ship's machinery, in other cases it would not.

In the particular case of Siboney I'd think it makes more sense to just disable a boiler or two and get the ship back in service quickly and cheaply, rather than spending lots of money on a rebuild she doesn't really need. Of course, it might make sense to combine the cheap "mutilation" of her boiler spaces with a refit so she doesn't need to go in for one in a few years.....


Friday, April 14th 2006, 7:06am

So in your opinion the boiler mutilation would not be considered a significant change in machinery output? This was the plan to begin with but my interpretation of the rules was that the mutilation would be a significant change, I may not be correct.


Friday, April 14th 2006, 11:43am

My opinion is that the rules, as currently written, do not correctly cover mutilations. They are assuming the engines are being replaced to gain either space & tonnage or speed, they do not cover a voluntary downgrade that does not recalculate the design to gain space.


Friday, April 14th 2006, 1:46pm

I think it should qualify as a Level 3 Major Refit 25% cost

We could add:
- remove/mutilate boilers.



Friday, April 14th 2006, 2:08pm

I'd make it a Manual Refit (5%) or a Minor Refit (15%), because it can be done with 2 men, a welding torch, a little solder, and a few men carrying out the scrap metal. We're talking easy stuff, here. But, and this is important, it's just a manual change to the text of the design.


Saturday, April 15th 2006, 10:50pm

Modifications to Siboney's refit time as per:


Level 3: Major Refits (cost = 25%)

-Changes to catapults and/or above-decks seaplane hangers: P
-Changes to deck mount or turret armor: P
-Changes to conning tower armor: P
-Changes to external armor belts: P (upper), D (ends, main)
-Changes to underwater torpedo tubes: D
-Changes to sonar: D
-Removal of secondary (or tertiary) gun turrets (barbettes plated over and possibly covered): P
-Refurbishment of internal fittings for life-extension purposes: P

3,222 tons needed and 6 months to complete. Does this sound more reasonable?


Sunday, April 16th 2006, 12:01pm

Given the superstructure and internal spaces changes that are planned, yes.