WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Light ship minus misc. weight is a start, but it still results in expensive LSTs. Using this design as an example, an LST (2) will cost just over 1000 tons, about the same as a DE, and 2 of them will cost more than the current USN-standard destroyer. That said, though, it DOES work out fairly well for the bigger, more capable ships like LSDs, where the USS Ashland design costs only about 2600 tons. Still perhaps a bit expensive for an auxilliary, but certainly better than full price.

Other opinions, comments?

The economic information I've got indicates an early LST was around 44% the cost in manhours of an early Fletcher-class; so while the cost is a bit high it's not, IMHO, too far out of line for our economic systems.

As I'd budgeted full tonnage to build a ship such as this, I'd find light tonnage minus misc weight of cargo a pleasant turn of events. Question, though: if we build the ships to light cost minus miscellaneous weight, would refits to the same sorts of ships also be covered this way?

Man hours to assemble, maybe: given that the first LSTs took 6 months to commissioning and the early Fletchers from 9 (USS Fletcher) to 14 (USS Nicholas) months. Of course, the LSTs were down to only 2 months to construct by the end of the war, while destroyers still took about the same amount of time (or longer, USS Van Valkenburgh took 13 months to launch and 21 to commission).


I'd expect whatever price we settle on for auxilliaries of a disposable nature would be used for any refits, though those refits might be different than normal (either required sooner, because the ship isn't built that heavily, or more expensive, because the ship takes more wear and tear from use, etc).

What about, say converting a shallow draft tanker to an LST? What would the cost be then? Its not purpose built but...

I'm with Hrolf on this one. Light minus misc. means a cheaper ship for a role that is relatively disposible.

For the refits, I would recommend a ship built to .9-1 strength requires one every 15 years, a ship built to .5-.75 strength requires one every 12.5 years, and a ship built to this rule requires one every 10 years.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
I'm with Hrolf on this one. Light minus misc. means a cheaper ship for a role that is relatively disposible.

For the refits, I would recommend a ship built to .9-1 strength requires one every 15 years, a ship built to .5-.75 strength requires one every 12.5 years, and a ship built to this rule requires one every 10 years.

We are not making rules about forced refits.

Not forced, just performance would go gradually downhill if they were not refitted by those dates....A.K.A, ships couldn't meet their previous top speed, problems with leaking would become more frequent, ships couldn't handle the strain placed on the hull by a full broadside as well as they used to, etc., etc.

We're not discussing refits, we're discussing costs of LSTs and other auxiliaries.

In terms of the topic at hand... Perhaps we can settle this both ways.

- Auxiliaries/landing ships of 3,001t or greater light tonnage shall be built to light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [1] [2]
- Landing ships and landing craft of 3,000t or less shall be built to, say, 75% light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [3]

[1] Including, for example, tanks, or water in flooded well decks; but not including things like radar, workshops, cranes, etc.
[2] As we've discussed here and in the Landing Ship Dock thread.
[3] In this case, Hrolf's LST above would be (1,789 - 780) * .75 = 757 tons (or 30% the cost of the current US destroyers).

That places those who have invested in a comprehensive LST/LSD fleet (India, Russia), at a disadvantage, having paid full price for those ships in the past.

Yes it does, but if we intend to create an exception for these ships, then whatever option we choose shall cause that. And if we intend to use an exception, then we need to do it now before more of these ships are built.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Yes it does, but if we intend to create an exception for these ships, then whatever option we choose shall cause that. And if we intend to use an exception, then we need to do it now before more of these ships are built.

India is fine. I'm looking for the SIM for the loaded version of the ship but it seems I deleted it by mistake. Basically is what Hrolf said, the ship goes down to a 1:00 hull strength and tonnage grows to around 3000 tons after misc. weights and everything else is counted. So conclusion is that Indian ships are made to be more seaworthy than the American design but I will look with interest these new developments for later construction.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
In terms of the topic at hand... Perhaps we can settle this both ways.

- Auxiliaries/landing ships of 3,001t or greater light tonnage shall be built to light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [1] [2]
- Landing ships and landing craft of 3,000t or less shall be built to, say, 75% light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [3]

[1] Including, for example, tanks, or water in flooded well decks; but not including things like radar, workshops, cranes, etc.
[2] As we've discussed here and in the Landing Ship Dock thread.
[3] In this case, Hrolf's LST above would be (1,789 - 780) * .75 = 757 tons (or 30% the cost of the current US destroyers).

Second sentence works for me just fine.

On the first sentence, do you mean that to apply to ships like tankers, destroyer/submarine/seaplane/etc tenders, and armed merchant cruisers? Or should "Auxiliary/" be replaced by "Specialized "?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
In terms of the topic at hand... Perhaps we can settle this both ways.

- Auxiliaries/landing ships of 3,001t or greater light tonnage shall be built to light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [1] [2]
- Landing ships and landing craft of 3,000t or less shall be built to, say, 75% light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [3]

[1] Including, for example, tanks, or water in flooded well decks; but not including things like radar, workshops, cranes, etc.
[2] As we've discussed here and in the Landing Ship Dock thread.
[3] In this case, Hrolf's LST above would be (1,789 - 780) * .75 = 757 tons (or 30% the cost of the current US destroyers).

Second sentence works for me just fine.

On the first sentence, do you mean that to apply to ships like tankers, destroyer/submarine/seaplane/etc tenders, and armed merchant cruisers? Or should "Auxiliary/" be replaced by "Specialized "?

Eh, probably should make it Specialized Landing Ships only, although purpose-built (non-civilian conversion) oilers and resupply ships could probably also be built to that.

Sounds like a workable plan. I like this idea for landing ships (landing craft normally falling under the small ships rules anyway).

I guess it could be stretched to cover tankers (those built purposely for the Navies as replenishment ships) as the oil is disposable misc weight just like the water in the LSD. Resupply ships too would be good under these rules.

Repairs ships, submarine tenders etc would have a lot of their misc weight bolted down, eg machinery, foundaries, battery chargers, hospital facilities etc but obviously they would carry spare ammo and parts etc.

As to retrograde steps for existing ships, we've made other changes before and not deliveried bonuses. Really it was never an issue since not many nations built them and only now has the issue been big enough to decide a rule change. Likely too no-one ever thought about the implications of all that misc weight too until now when RA had a Eureka moment.

Ok so given these rules, my Lago de Maracaibo class shallow draft tanker/LST conversions would cost 1,117 tons per ship, or 50% of the light displacment (6,533 tons) minus misc weight (4,200 tons).

How do you get 50% from 75%?

50% rebuild, they are conversions from shallow draft tankers.

Just to clarify the converted version is 6,533 tons with 4,200 tons misc weight. with the LST rule thats light tonnage minus misc which is 2,333 tons. 50% conversion is 1,117 tons.

Oh, ok, I thought you were referring to new-built ships under 3,000 tons....

No its not a new build, its a conversion.

So no further comments on this. Is it a done deal? We haven't heard from Hoo on this either.