Design Bureau Guangzhou

[Sachmle]

The rules may not explicitly state it, but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a tender and certainly not a civvie-standard boat.

A purpose built CV I agree completely, but since there are only, what, 2-3 TEST/EXPERIMENTAL CVs in Nverse I have a VERY hard time swallowing ANYONE building a purpose built CV at this time. As to 'merchant' hulls, why not build experimental CVs and seaplane tenders on the hulls of existing tankers/colliers/liners? This would be more period acceptable, and IMO realistic. Jumping from NO CVs to purpose built w/o an experimental of your own, or at least before anyone who does builds their own purpose built CV is, well simply ridiculous.

[Logi]

What tankers? What colliers? What liners?

I only have one tanker, and it is serving a very important duty.

I only have one collier and I can't afford to throw it away.

I only have one liner and it was newly constructed and 20,000 tons. Newly constructed conversions are really a waste, IMO.

As it stands, pretty much the RRC lacks anything to convert the ship from, without dipping in the merchant marine. Thus building the Carrier from kneel up, merchant standard, is the most feasible option.

[The Rock Doctor]

My interpretation of an experimental carrier is a Langley, Hosho, or Argus.  Slow, unprotected, small, few aircraft.  If somebody wants to propose a conversion on those lines, I'd be prepared to compromise.  Maybe we consider it as a rule for "Escort carriers".

But if we toss fleet speed, large airgroups, and armor into the equation, we're into a purpose-built carriers, and I would not discount the cost any.

[Carthaginian]

I agree with Logi- after a fashion... the ship is NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION, it's merely 'undergoing an extensive conversion during construction.' This way he: 1) makes all the necessary storyline compromises, 2.) has a ship of limited capabilities and 3.) doesn't have to sacrifice any existing ships. Extra points if it uses the SS for an existing merchant ship.

Basically, he's building the ship as a merchant ship, and deciding to convert it while building.
Everyone is happy... as long as it remains a 'converted merchant' and doesn't turn into a covert fleet carrier.

[Logi]

There's nothing in the RRC fleet goes at 18 kts. The slowest ship goes 26 kts.

Having an experimental carrier of 18 kts would be beyond stupid. (I mean for non-conversions) It would simply be purpose-built experiment torpedo bait.

The ship is unprotected save the deck armor, which could be removed for more miscellaneous weight for other purposes.

The ship is small, it's at 8000 tons. Unless you want the 4000 ton version.

----

I could see that Carth. I'll come up with a merchant ship SS doc first, then a conversion doc.

[damocles]

The rules may not explicitly state it, but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a tender and certainly not a civvie-standard boat.

A purpose built CV I agree completely, but since there are only, what, 2-3 TEST/EXPERIMENTAL CVs in Nverse I have a VERY hard time swallowing ANYONE building a purpose built CV at this time. As to 'merchant' hulls, why not build experimental CVs and seaplane tenders on the hulls of existing tankers/colliers/liners? This would be more period acceptable, and IMO realistic. Jumping from NO CVs to purpose built w/o an experimental of your own, or at least before anyone who does builds their own purpose built CV is, well simply ridiculous.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=5127.msg62609#msg62609

The point with that "tender" is that it is built as an experiment and that it is the test bed. I would have to build it as a tender first, before I ever built the 26,000 ton job. The reason I would call them tenders is because they "tend" air wings.

They have to conform to tender rules because they have to have separate fuel and ammo for their aircraft and that I can only sim as misc. weight that counts toward warship costs!       

[Sachmle]

What tankers? What colliers? What liners?

I only have one tanker, and it is serving a very important duty.

I only have one collier and I can't afford to throw it away.

I only have one liner and it was newly constructed and 20,000 tons. Newly constructed conversions are really a waste, IMO.

As it stands, pretty much the RRC lacks anything to convert the ship from, without dipping in the merchant marine. Thus building the Carrier from kneel up, merchant standard, is the most feasible option.

Says who? I presume RRC has a merchant marine of it's own too. How does RRC mined coal that isn't used domestically get to the nation that buys it? You have 1 gov't subsidized liner, but what of purely civilian ones? It's STORYLINE...RRC gov't buys Liner SS Wang Chung from Hong Kong-Americas Line for $X and then you convert it. You make an SS for the Civilian Liner that was built in 1908, whatever...then alter the SS to the "Conversion" stats. Figure the cost for conversion the same way you figure costs for reconstructions, pay whatever it is, have experimental carrier on Liner hull.

[Carthaginian]

There's nothing in the RRC fleet goes at 18 kts. The slowest ship goes 26 kts.

Having an experimental carrier of 18 kts would be beyond stupid. (I mean for non-conversions) It would simply be purpose-built experiment torpedo bait.

The ship is unprotected save the deck armor, which could be removed for more miscellaneous weight for other purposes.

The ship is small, it's at 8000 tons. Unless you want the 4000 ton version.

----

I could see that Carth. I'll come up with a merchant ship SS doc first, then a conversion doc.

An early carrier WAS NOT A FLEET UNIT!
They were  just 'eyes and ears' that tagged along while the fleet cruised. They weren't meant to go anywhere near the battle that the battleships and cruisers would be participating in. The early 'fast carriers' weren't actually 'fleet carriers,' they were battlecruisers with a carrier deck. That was the reason they had ridiculous top speeds.

Ranger was almost 5 knots slower than the nearly 35 knot Lexington.
Argus and Hermes were both real barn burners- making 21 and 25 knots, respectively. Compare this to the American carriers, or to Furious which made 30 knots.
Hosho might have been a dragon, but she pranced at a stately 25 knots compared to her contemporaries in the IJN; the Akagi made 32 knots.

If you're going to build a merchant conversion, it seems that 20-ish knots is a good upper limit.
A (true) cruiser-hull conversion might make in the mid-to-upper 20's.
A battlecruier conversion (not a first step for anyone unless they wait for a few years till the grunt work is done) might break 30 knots, if the ship is converted early enough.

These seem to be pretty iron-clad limits if you look at historic carriers.

[The Rock Doctor]

The point with that "tender" is that it is built as an experiment and that it is the test bed. I would have to build it as a tender first, before I ever built the 26,000 ton job. The reason I would call them tenders is because they "tend" air wings.

By that logic, I could build an aircraft carrier to our Destroyer rules (0.5 HS) because she's going to "destroy" stuff.

[Carthaginian]

The point with that "tender" is that it is built as an experiment and that it is the test bed. I would have to build it as a tender first, before I ever built the 26,000 ton job. The reason I would call them tenders is because they "tend" air wings.

By that logic, I could build an aircraft carrier to our Destroyer rules (0.5 HS) because she's going to "destroy" stuff.

Well, maybe a couple of the Jap baby flattops... ;)

[Logi]

An early carrier WAS NOT A FLEET UNIT!
They were  just 'eyes and ears' that tagged along while the fleet cruised. They weren't meant to go anywhere near the battle that the battleships and cruisers would be participating in.

The RRC has a fleet to cruise somewhere? Seriously? It's a brownwater navy and you expect it to cruise much of anywhere. Point is everything that moves, teven the slowest is over 26 kts. And considering the operating radius of RRC ships and the bunker they have you can pretty much expect them to operate at either full speed or 70% speed.

I said 26 kts, thats 1 kt over the Hosho, Argue, and Hermes. That's also 4 kts under the Ranger. It it a ridiculously super fast ship? No.

Also if the carrier just tagged along, it would quickly become torpedo bait. The situation in the Pacific is not at all like RL, in the Chinese Pacific, it is torpedo ship, torpedo ship. There are few to no capital ships.

It is more likely a swarmed and sunk when it is alone then in a taskforce in which the ships can lay covering fire for each other. In other words, it is safer, in fact, to operate besides the heavy cruisers and light cruisers than to leave it when it engages in a battle.

[damocles]

The point with that "tender" is that it is built as an experiment and that it is the test bed. I would have to build it as a tender first, before I ever built the 26,000 ton job. The reason I would call them tenders is because they "tend" air wings.

By that logic, I could build an aircraft carrier to our Destroyer rules (0.5 HS) because she's going to "destroy" stuff.

An aircraft carrier does not directly engage. It fights or observes with its aircraft. The ship is a landing deck and maintenance unit for the aircraft it carries. Hence, it actually "tends" aircraft the same way a destroyer tender "tends" destroyers I think.  It is a floating airbase and aircraft repair facility.    

And since it does I apply the tender rules to it to describe it using miscellaneous weights to describe aviation ammo and oil storage separate from the ship's fuel and ammo.

Its an approach that I think fits?

[Carthaginian]

I said 26 kts, thats 1 kt over the Hosho, Argue, and Hermes. That's also 4 kts under the Ranger. It it a ridiculously super fast ship? No.

These were cruiser-based carriers. (Don't know what the 'Argue' is).
They would be FULL WARSHIP construction... a cruiser hull built to full warship standards.

If a carrier like these were built to warship standards, I'd have no problem with it.
But to be built to merchant standards, it's to handle like a merchant vessel.

[The Rock Doctor]

A tender doesn't cost a quarter of the BP cost of a similar sized warship because it uses only a quarter of the steel.  

It's a rule, like the merchie standards, intended to encourage folks to build up the fleet train and coast guard functons of their fleet.

We do not need a rule making aircraft carriers cheaper so that people will build more of them.  They can pay the full cost of a warship.

[Logi]

(Don't know what the 'Argue' is)

Sorry I meant to type Argus. Skipped the S for an E, it seems.

I intend to come up with a merchant design.