WesWorld

I've started this post so that we can discuss idea's that revolve around how to deal with museum ships.
Fire away!

Not certain I have a firm opinion.

Personally, I intend to have any museum ships donated to whatever entity they will be preserved under, possibly with the addition of some tonnage to make them more presentation-worthy.

At least here in the US, most of the ship memorials are NOT run or paid for by the Department of Defense. The (generally mothballed) ship is purchased from the Navy, brought to the site, and then opened for display. The ship is, from the point of transfer on, owned by the museum, which may be supported by private money, a combination of private money and the city or state, or theoretically purely by the city or state (I don't know of any that are run this way, but that doesn't mean there aren't any). The Pearl Harbor memorial is a different case, it's run by the Navy and the National Park Service.

Is the current US policy to have these vessels seaworthy, as it is with some aviation muesums?

Or are they completely de-activated?

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
Is the current US policy to have these vessels seaworthy, as it is with some aviation muesums?

Or are they completely de-activated?

I think it might depend on the ship. I know that the USS Hornet, at least when I toured her, occasionally ran a cruise or two as fund-raisers; and I *think* one of the Iowas are supposed to be maintained in a fashion that will enable them to be returned to service... though heaven only knows how much work THAT would take!

I imagine the main thing is that the guns are decommissioned, and for a carrier, catapults.

Generally they're not sea-worthy, there's no expectation they'll be used again. Recently USS Intrepid was towed off from her berth in New York to be repaired, she was in no way able or ready to operate on her own. USS Alabama and USS Drum were not moved when Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav came ashore (Alabama was listing badly, 8 degrees, after Katrina, but came through Gustav OK). USS Constitution is one of the exceptions here, she actually put to sea for a little bit a couple years ago.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I've started this post so that we can discuss idea's that revolve around how to deal with museum ships.
Fire away!

I think it should be pretty simple. If you declare a vessel a museum ship, you strike it from the list and it's considered off the books and storyline only.

On the plus side, you never have to plan a service life extension for it as maintenance is now done by museum staff.

Now if you simply want to use it as a museum, but keep it combat capable....then you write a news peice saying it's in reserve and will be used as a museum in the meantime. The clock keeps ticking on refit schedules, but no mandated extra costs.

Agree with the hated Dutch on this one.

Yes, but if a city got's a sponsorship for a museum ship, why shouldn't they also pay for it ?

I think we need to distinguish whether a ship is sold to a city or whether the Navy itself "creates" it as a museum ship.

But there is also another point, the time !!! Scrapping a ship and so the recycling of material needs time and drydockspace and selling a ship to a city didn't need time and drydockspace

Basically, I have no problem with Hrolfs interpretation. May be it will be okay for every one if the city didn't pay immediately but in installments. For example, the sum of the material divided by the length of the "normal" scrapping time

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Yes, but if a city got's a sponsorship for a museum ship, why shouldn't they also pay for it ?

Because a city doesn't have any factories. The tonnage is essentially appearing ex nihilo to buy the ship out of service.

What if, as an example, the Chilean city of Valparaiso decided to buy one of the Chilean battlecruisers as a museum ship, and paid scrap price? Valparaiso has no factories, so tonnage would be created from nothing. Once Chile establishes the precedent that Valparaiso can create tonnage for museum ships, what if Valparaiso decided to sponsor, say, a battlecruiser to replace the ship being turned into a museum?

Or, alternately, what if Bulgaria "sold" the Varna to a museum, but then found themselves needing a battleship again? The ship still exists; why not buy her back, give her a quick refit, and sail her out to meet the enemy? And then the war ends and... whups, I sell her back to a museum for money, again.

...I understand the purpose here and and I'm all for saving ships as museums. But this can get abused rather easily (IMHO). I either intend to give my museum ships a presentation-refit, then donate; or just donate.

If we make the scrap price equal the same price received from a museum ship, what's the point of scrapping a ship? I'd just poof all of my old ships to museums and never scrap them. Unrealistic, IMHO.

Yes that's really a problem, the tonnage is created from nothing. But's the same with aircrafts and tanks

So why so hair splitting ?

a) the ship became a museum ship => it's stripped in the roster

b) in my eyes it's the same as it's beeing scrapped => could receive the same money as scrapping the ship

c) If the museum ship will be back into service you have to pay a sum of X, for example four times of the tonnage you got for the scrapping


Or we make it so easy

a) preparing a ship to a museumship needs the same time as if you will scrap it

b) you got the same amount of tonnage as if you scrap it but only in installements over the whole time

Quoted

If we make the scrap price equal the same price received from a museum ship, what's the point of scrapping a ship? I'd just poof all of my old ships to museums and never scrap them. Unrealistic, IMHO.

That is true, but here we all have an obligation. The role play should have a bit of reality.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
c) If the museum ship will be back into service you have to pay a sum of X, for example four times of the tonnage you got for the scrapping

I think that whatever we decide, this should be made part of the rule.

I think it’s a matter of the Naval economy, which is what we track, and the Non-naval/Civilian, which is what we don’t.

Factories represent the potential investment the country can and chooses to make in naval matters. Slips and Drydocks are not just the physical features, but the military ones and the infrastructure & machinery to exploit them. All the civilian slips, drydocks, and shipping is pretty much ignored.

A scrapped ship is money and material the military can recover. A museum ship is transferred to the civilian economy. If it remained in the Naval economy, the funds to s to prepare the birth, repaint her, clean up the engine room until it shines, hire tour guides and whatnot- would all be naval economy.

However, Museums are civilian economy and we can assume the civilian side takes care of the conversion costs, but that civilian economy does not suddenly decide not to build 2,000 cars so that they can build more warships just because a ship got made into a museum.

IMO a museum ship should neither give nor cost any material. I also belive that there should be a rule forbidding re-activation of museum ships.

One other thing to consider. So far we have looked at the OOC aspect but how about the IC aspect?

Say Peru turns a BB into a Museum Ship and gets scrap value. I (OOC) know that that ship is out for the count, but IC I do not know that. As far as I know that ship could very well return to service, while at the same time Peru has a lot more money to spend.

I see 3 options, all of which would be based on the following premis.....
- removing/wrecking machinery
- removing/wrecking steering mechnism
- wrecking the training mechanism of the turrets and all ammo handling as well as the closing mechanisms of the guns
- disabling the training of the fire control
- and opening her to the public.

Option 1 - The Museum Ship costs tonnage to prepare for display, let's say 15% of the light tonnage, the same as the lowest level of refit.
Put it down to converting narrow steep ladders to wide gently sloping staircases, making hatches easier to get through, adding safety rails, etc

Option 2 - The Museum Ship does not cost any tonnage to prepare for display,
the cost of the conversion being offset by the fact that no tonnage is generated through scrapping.

Option 3 - The Museum Ship costs no tonnage to prepare for display, and the scrap value is paid by the "city" that is to be the final berth of the vessel.
I haven't mentioned the amount of scrap value that the host city would pay, as I feel it should be discussed if this option is selected.


On my own behalf, I would select Option 2.
I could live with Option 1, but I am not keen on Option 3.
But I will stand be whatever the majority decision, should we reach one.

As regards IC issues, we could have an independant Naval Attache from a non-aligned nation in the host city, confirm that the vessel is no longer in a serviceable condition.

Although I am unlikely to ever create a museum ship I believe that option 2 is the best

Option Two for me as well, though I'd add that if we choose Option Two then it wouldn't rule out Option One being selected by the player in question.

(Edit: Hey look, a FAR member, an AEGIS member, and a SATSUMA member all agreed on something! The world must verily be ending!!! )

Given the current state of things I think option 1 is best. Ships are expensive to maintain, even if they are sat in concrete.

With regards to option 3, can I start a bidding war between cities vying for the ship and magically generate oodles of free tonnage?

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
I see 3 options, all of which would be based on the following premis.....
- removing/wrecking machinery
- removing/wrecking steering mechnism
- wrecking the training mechanism of the turrets and all ammo handling as well as the closing mechanisms of the guns
- disabling the training of the fire control
- and opening her to the public.

Option 1 - The Museum Ship costs tonnage to prepare for display, let's say 15% of the light tonnage, the same as the lowest level of refit.
Put it down to converting narrow steep ladders to wide gently sloping staircases, making hatches easier to get through, adding safety rails, etc

Option 2 - The Museum Ship does not cost any tonnage to prepare for display,
the cost of the conversion being offset by the fact that no tonnage is generated through scrapping.

Option 3 - The Museum Ship costs no tonnage to prepare for display, and the scrap value is paid by the "city" that is to be the final berth of the vessel.
I haven't mentioned the amount of scrap value that the host city would pay, as I feel it should be discussed if this option is selected.


On my own behalf, I would select Option 2.
I could live with Option 1, but I am not keen on Option 3.
But I will stand be whatever the majority decision, should we reach one.

As regards IC issues, we could have an independant Naval Attache from a non-aligned nation in the host city, confirm that the vessel is no longer in a serviceable condition.

On your premises, why would these things be done? Removing/wrecking the engine rooms seems like completely pointless vandalism (and it certainly hasn't been done in the past, part of the tours of various ships includes the machinery spaces), and while the previously owning government might well disable the firing mechanisms of the guns, wrecking the training mechanisms and breeches seems again pointless vandalism when the guns are useless without their firing mechanisms and ammunition (and the ability of heavy guns to turn is lost without engine power anyway).


RA: Heh, I could wish, but I would think that any payment for ships for this purpose should be capped at the same as the scrap price, just for the sake of simplicity.


I will note the history of the USS Des Moines, which was kept in mothballs for years while the USN waited while various groups tried to come up with the funds to buy her to turn her into a museum to save her from the scrap yard. It didn't work out, in the end, but it wasn't because the USN wasn't willing to sell her, it was because the various groups couldn't come up with the money to buy the ship and create a museum to display her.