You are not logged in.

Margin for growth.

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.

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

  • Send private message

1

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 8:59am

Margin for growth.

Margin for growth.

Do people allow sufficient for growth? It seems if we contrast WW cruiser designs of 12 6" on 8000tons vs realworld at the same time 8 6" on 8000tons but in RL the difference has been devoted to misc weight. When ships are refitted they gain weight. Could it be that these 1930's Fiji's will have to have a turret removed to cater for the motorised icecream machines or whatever down the track?

Cheers,

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

2

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 11:14am

In the case of my CL designs its a mix up.

The 1926 Ares class have some considerable reserve stability (1.16 IIRC) and 80 misc weight. The design itself needs some OOC tweaks as its designed with an earlier version of SS not to mention the drawing fails to show the raised forcastle.

The 1928 Cerasus class CL's have slightly less reserve stability (1.12) and misc weight (75) tons but other than electronics they seem adequate for the time being.

My 1930's on designs are now setting aside room for future growth (inspired by Hrolfs design practices), the Acestus class have 70 tons of misc weight for this and unlike the other CL's they lack aircraft.

The Danaus class CLAA's go a step further by settign aside tonnage for specific equipment and have 20 tons for future growth. Eventually some equipment will likely be swapped for further growth such as her DC's and some torpedos once their are seen as un-nessassary.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

3

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 12:08pm

Quoted

My 1930's on designs are now setting aside room for future growth (inspired by Hrolfs design practices), the Acestus class have 70 tons of misc weight for this and unlike the other CL's they lack aircraft.


Good grief, I have a practice? :)

It's certainly possible that various designs are pretty tightly specced and that in the future they'll need to remove something to install something else. In my designs I've generally tried to leave some space for future growth, but I'm not going to say it will always be enough.

JohnEStauffer

Trainee

Posts: 155

  • Send private message

4

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 3:55pm

This is slightly OT, but bears on the concept of growth/modification.
In SS draft/freeboard are entered by the designer. In many actual upgrades (new superstructures, added electronics, heavier masts, etc) along with changes in armament the displacement & draft increases/freeboard decreases due to the heavier weight.
How do you compensate in SS for upgrades/changes?

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

  • Send private message

5

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 5:44pm

Increase and decrease draught/freeboard manually ;)

Alternatively, use handwavium to decree that displacement does not change, which is the most common approach.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

6

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 5:56pm

Or try not to exceed the amount of tonnage put aside for future growth. :)

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

7

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 5:57pm

It is more than just increasing/decreasing draught and freeboard. When nothing is changed regarding the fuel bunker and machinery, you wil have to adjust range as well as speed so that you have the same bunker weight and machinery weight as before.
I think RA's first 'legalization' attempts of the Saint class to get it down close enough to 13,000 tons is a good example. Making the ship lighter and keeping the same range and speed resulted in a smaller bunker and smaller machinery and so he could get a lot closer to 13,000 tons than I could with proper weight subtractions of the things removed from the ship.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Apr 5th 2007, 5:57pm)

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

8

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 7:58pm

I started looking at what was more reasonable to fit on a hull of 8000tons and decided that 8x6" or 9x6" is the way to go. Even if nothing else it simply gives more _space_ to mount other things on later. I've had some extremely tight designs (e.g. the Pisa-Class) but now in the mid/late 30s its going to awful trying to modernise them. I've been leaving off the heavy AA from ships as well and mounting more smaller automatic weapons that'll actually shoot things down. LA main guns can still put up a reasonable barrage fire, especially when in a TF.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

9

Friday, April 6th 2007, 5:57am

The Dutch only recently started Service Life Extensions and AA / FC upgrades on major units, leading to "how do we fit X in?" type questions. This is leading to future designs having additional miscellaneous weight in many cases. They will not know if that is sufficient until later.

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

10

Friday, April 6th 2007, 6:11am

The majority of Canada's navy is inherited ships. Newbuild ships seem to have ample tonnage set aside for future growth, tho.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

11

Friday, April 6th 2007, 7:43am

While the Dutch ships are home built, they were also built by my predecessor, so are inherited in that manner. One must also consider than pre-treaty, a 15 year old ship was not upgraded, she was scrapped or placed in the second line, there was no call for 'growth room'.

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

  • Send private message

12

Friday, April 6th 2007, 12:12pm

I was thinking that you may need to set aside 4 to 5% to allow for 'growth'.

Cheers,

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

13

Friday, April 6th 2007, 4:55pm

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
I was thinking that you may need to set aside 4 to 5% to allow for 'growth'.

Cheers,


I am nowhere near that. Consider that on a 6,000 ton CL that would mean 240-300tons of additional space. While it is much easier to set aside an additional 100+ tons on a battleship, setting aside 1,600-2,000 tons for work 10 or more years in the future, when you could use it right now seems a bit much foresight. This does get easier outside of the treaty, as one could just tack it on after meeting the current design specs.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

14

Saturday, April 14th 2007, 4:26am

Question :

If a 8,344 standard ton cruiser was designed with 344 tons of "growth" in "misc weight" that would be tonnage not actually present.
Would it then be acceptable to deduct those 344 tons from the ship's official displacement?

Putting some figures on it: Tinkering around, I designed a CL with 75 tons misc. weight and 1.09 comp hull, with a standard displacement of 8,344. I can increase the misc. weight to 419 (+344) before comp hull drops to 0.99.

Since those 344 tons are not fitted on launch, would it be legitimate to present a 8,344 ts, 1.09 comp hull 75t misc vessel and state (to the satisfaction of international inspectors) that the true standard is 8,000 because the ship has a 344 ton allowance for growth?
Or am I missing something?

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Apr 14th 2007, 4:28am)

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

  • Send private message

15

Saturday, April 14th 2007, 2:01pm

It's the *equiped for but not fitted with clause. This allows for the fitting of twin 4" in place of single 4" at a later refit as you can do it without having to remove integral things like armour or main turrets. This can be done to a point when you have to remove topweight to add extra kit.

In the case of the 8000 ton ship you may need to design it at 8344, cut it back and build it (SIM it) as 8000ton knowing that you can go to 8344 if need be (increased draft).

Cheers,