• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Mothballed ships; decommissioning

"old ironsides" had a number of engagements
to set the story straight...

a number of cannonballs bounced
off her sides during a battle
hence the name "old ironsides"...

here: http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/
here: http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdat.htm

it does appear that the HMS victory is 220
years old and the constiution is 201 but
the HMS victory has been drydocked since 1922
whereas the constiution is still sailing a few
days out of the year...she was drydocked in 1927
then she re-sailed after repairs in 1930...

http://www.hms-victory.com/

BOTH have not seen real combat since 1812...
 
Originally posted by stofsk:
So I figure that you have to decommission ships after a certain point. Traveller posits a future where ships can be in service for a century at least.

Would you need to mothball ships for decades after their century of service? (if it turns out that naval ships actually have more or less time in service in Traveller, so be it) Assuming a relatively slow tech progression, a ship that was made two centuries ago might not be up to the standards of the day's modern battleship, but in cases where you're running out of ships and need anything that can fly, bringing a ship out of retirement is still an option.

Problems though: antiquated computer systems, a hull that's probably marked with micrometeorite impacts, and no doubt other maintenance concerns that would necessitate the ship still costing money even whilst in mothballs.

Or would you decommission the vessel? Today, when you want to get rid of a vessel properly you basically sink the thing and create an artificial reef. In space, what do you do? I imagine you can program a course orbit that will take the ship into the local sun. Or if there is a gas giant nearby then a one-way ticket down would work in a pinch.

Some particularly famous ships can be converted into museums. For everything else, that one final voyage is made.
setting course into a local sun would seem
an apporipriate naval "decommishining" act
to me, a cerimonial type thing that navy fellas
love......
 
Originally posted by stofsk:
Or if there is a gas giant nearby then a one-way ticket down would work in a pinch.
And tick off the folks who live at the bottom? No way! They're already mad at our stealing of their atmosphere...... ;)

Originally posted by sid6.7:
setting course into a local sun would seem
an apporipriate naval "decommishining" act
to me, a cerimonial type thing that navy fellas
love......
That might work for us sentimental Solomani types, but I think the ever-practical Vilani would just melt the thing down and use it for a new ship.
 
Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Each one his believes Bill. But let's stay civil and not get in the heat.
Michael,

I was civil. I called your claims baloney when I could have called them bullshit.
</font>[/QUOTE]It's amazing how some people have such thin skins - this is the goddamn internet! 99% is either ⌧ or harsh language. I'm all for being civil - but he said baloney for christ's sake... it's like saying heck instead of hell.
 
Bill:

Short version:

+ I disagree with you and your claims that the german officer lied.

+ I have no interests in turning this in a "fact-slinging" duel since you are sticking to one source and I to another so there's not much to achive

+ With "post-war IKL boats" I referred to the fact that the post WWII german subs ARE based on the Type XXI. If that boat was so inferior, why DID the IKL start with those and not the US stuff?
 
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Short version: I disagree with you and your claims that the german officer lied.
Michael,

I didn't say Schnee lied. I said someone is lying.

If you're going to believe the stories about the U-2511/HMS Norfolk encounter, you're going to need to explain all the inaccuracies then. People aboard the same submarine told very different stories. There are variations in time, number of approaches, distance of approaches, whether mock torpedo firings were calculated, and other things.

Something momentous happened aboard, but no one tells the same story of the event. A few details differing I can understand, people percieve things and remember things differently, but wholesale differences in the story?

Did U-2511 spot HMS Norfolk that day near Bergen? Yes.

Do we know what actually happened next? No.

With "post-war IKL boats" I referred to the fact that the post WWII german subs ARE based on the Type XXI. If that boat was so inferior, why DID the IKL start with those and not the US stuff?
That isn't what you originally wrote. You wrote: WWII submarines where out-dated fifteen minutes after the Allies got their first Typ XXI U-Boot. Now you've stepped back from that claim to: post WWII german subs ARE based on the Type XXI. Which is it?

I agree with your second claim. I did not agree with your first claim.

AS for sources, there are sources and then there are sources. I'll lean towards Blair. He's a scholar of international repute. He's researched and written various campaign histories for uniformed services in the US and abroad. His work on the US sub campaign in the Pacific is considered definitive and is taught at the US Naval Academy. The two-volume work that I refer to is a condensed, publically marketed version of a multi-volume, academic research project, much like how S.E. Morrison's multi-volume WW2 USN naval hisory was condensed to a single volume for sale. What's more, Blair was a naval officer who served aboard submarines in the time period in question and was part of the USN team that examined the Type-XXIs and XXIIIs.

In other words, Blair is the horse's mouth. Your sources, at least for your first claim and not your second, seem to involve the horse's other end.

YM obviously Vs.


Have fun,
Bill
 
a) You know the concept of over-agregation, don't you :D That's where the 15 minutes came from.

b) <deleted>

c) Sources

What we have here is a battle of the sources. You cite a book writen by someone who is considered an expert by some circles. To prove (or disprove) his claims:

+ I have to chech WHO considers him an expert (and WHO does not). Some experts are only good in their home country.

+ Check what his job was in that studie[1]

+ Check wether his opinion is the majority opinion[2]

+ Check the conditions under which the studie was done. I.e did they pick a boat from the slips or one that had gone through workup[3], was the crew used to the boat or a USN crew, did the boat have the torpedo-hatch modification, where was the test done[4]

I freely admit that I lack time, interest and ressources for that.

OtoH I could city "The Type XXI submarine" and "U2540", written by an IKL engineer respectively a naval officer stating that the boats had quality problems due Mass production of ships (New for Germany) and took longer to get sea-ready but once worked up where quite capabel. You would have to do the same with that book.

So you have your expert, I have mine. Unless we go to court, we won't solve that.


[1] I can proudly claim I was a member of the Task Force that Y2K proofed german mining, my name is in the final report. My job was running tests designed by engineers (I was a student) and taking the minutes

[2] Larger studies more often than not end up with two options

[3] A major difference in ships

[4] A short look at the XXI range and it's clear that she's an Atlantic boat. Claiming "won't work in the Pazific" is like claiming a Marder IFV is not air-transportable - That wasn't a design criteria
 
Michael,

At first I thought my posts were suffering in translation. I am now convinced that you are being deliberately dense.

This is not about which source to believe, or how the USN examined the Type-XXIs, or your role in some Y2K project and I have no earthly idea what that that last bit has to do with anything we're discussing.

This is about your claim in your first post in this thread. To whit: WWII submarines where out-dated fifteen minutes after the Allies got their first Typ XXI U-Boot. That statement is patently false and I refuted it.

With one claim proven incorrect, you then switched to another. To whit: post WWII german subs ARE based on the Type XXI. I do agree with that statement. However, that is NOT WHAT YOU FIRST CLAIMED.

This conversation is over. I am tired of trying to talk with someone whose is both playing games and playing dumb.


Bill
 
Next time when you refer to a single sentence that is clearly meant as an exagregation, please quote in context.


I actually had to dig through my old postings to find that. Given that your original posting on the topic followed

Some ship dates:

U2540 "Wilhelm Bauer", a Series XXI submarine was build in 1944, sunk by the own crew in 45, raised and repaired in 57 and used as a test submarine by the german navy until 1982 for a 25 years continuous service (The Iowas where in-active most of the time) The sub is currently afloat in Bremerhaven.

Class 205 submarines where produced starting 1967, the units are currently phased out after up to 36 years of continous service, some of the 206 class boats from the mid-1970s are still in service

Some of the US Balao-class submarines build in the 1940s served until the early 70s
and I refered to that as I believed you meant that and not to

The low number of mothballed WWII ships returning to service has three reasons:

+ Technologie made some huge leaps soon thereafter

- WWII submarines where out-dated fifteen minutes after the Allies got their first Typ XXI U-Boot

- Electronics forced new design principles, starting with more powerful electrical systems

- Missiles forced new design principles like launchers and later Vertical Launch Arrays

- Guns went out of favour
a single side-sentence in my third posting that from the context should be clearly visible as "not 100 percent serious".
 
I based much of my campaign on mothballed vessels being the best TNE option.
- If the economy doesn't have superior options it seems clear that Mothballed vessels should be restored.
- It seems that 40yrs for a ship before a major refit is reasonable in Traveller.
- Instead of space based fleet storage ships can be stored underground in LowG environments (planetoids etc). Afterall Traveler has gravitics.
 
Originally posted by stofsk:
So I figure that you have to decommission ships after a certain point. Traveller posits a future where ships can be in service for a century at least.

Would you need to mothball ships for decades after their century of service? (if it turns out that naval ships actually have more or less time in service in Traveller, so be it) Assuming a relatively slow tech progression, a ship that was made two centuries ago might not be up to the standards of the day's modern battleship, but in cases where you're running out of ships and need anything that can fly, bringing a ship out of retirement is still an option.


The TU History of the 60kton Fleet Intruder class High-Lightnings CA's that saw action in the Imperial-Solomani Rim war (992-1002 TI) and what happened to the surviving members of the class. Several were sold to become huge armed bulk freighters--one sold to an over-the-border Imperial trading Sector-wide firm, iirc.

Several were mothballed at Trin/Deneb. One of these Azhanti-High-Lightning-class received upgrades to a meson gun instead of her initial issued PA spinal mount, and a partially streamlined hull for gas giant refueling herself under emergency circumstances.

ISS Arrival Vengeance CF-6415 was handpicked to be "stolen" by mercenaries & nobles to take on Archduke Norris' MT-era module adventure to scout out what remained of the Shattered Imperium.

Problems though: antiquated computer systems, a hull that's probably marked with micrometeorite impacts, and no doubt other maintenance concerns that would necessitate the ship still costing money even whilst in mothballs.

There are places in space one can store such vessels, and 'mothball' ships. Most have been discussed already. One such place to avoid your mircometeor damage is of course in the Oort cloud of a system. It isn't the only one, however. They could also be parked if installations are not there already, at the la Grange points of a planet.

Or would you decommission the vessel? Today, when you want to get rid of a vessel properly you basically sink the thing and create an artificial reef. In space, what do you do? I imagine you can program a course orbit that will take the ship into the local sun. Or if there is a gas giant nearby then a one-way ticket down would work in a pinch.

Some particularly famous ships can be converted into museums. For everything else, that one final voyage is made.
=================================================
Okay Stofsk--

there are several prudent reasons for mothballing, besides saving for "rainy day war". 1.)
A new client state might appear over the border, and wish to become more familiar with Imperial tech.

What better way than to sell them some the outdated (-1, or 2 TL) Imperial vessels?

2.) Auxillary training vessels for Navy academy crews.

3.) A Sector/ subsector natural disaster (say a star goes nova, like in the Maghiz-of Darrian space)--cobble together a rescue-evacuation fleet--tap your mothballed ships!

These are just a few reasons why mothballing is a good idea. To answer how its done, better ask someone else with knowledge of the present day techniques. I'm honest to say I defer that with handwavium and nod, "they do it/ did it."

Now to the latter part of your query:
The hull and anything not nailed down or too expensive to open the hull up and remove at the time is removed & stockpiled. Where? Why to the Naval Depot Bases! Parts is parts, after all.

Now a breaker-yard, is a base where battle damaged vessels unworthy /too expensive to save are cannibalized down to hull metal. The scrap is sent back to A-class & B-class ports for making more hulls, and anything else (turets, weapons, power systems, sensors, etc that remains winds back up either at a Depot, or if need is immediate, to nearest Naval base where ships of that class are for their spare parts Stock piles.

And last, for TNE purposes with technology lost by the Rebellion's ferocious ship losses throughout, those older hulled vessels become the pocket empire's new fleet with a little work. TA-7 'Fighting Ship's gives us a look at what was an auxillary vessel then (200 some odd years prior) and what would be 2nd- 3rd line vessels of the Tne era if found and restored.

Thanks again, Good topic!
 
(just as the US sells old equipment to Third World countries like Canada).
canadas above the US and is Princaple Richer and has its own ship yards making ice cutting vessels and combat Vessels.#


Mothballing vessels erm.
In traveller older vessels would have there weopons stripped out and maybe the computer and the Jump drive depending how your selling it to.
Then sell it on, the buyer could also buy weapons such as lower power lasers and Missile Racks.
If the Buyer is in control of only one planet then have the Jump drive stripped out and if the buyers tech level is below the existing computer strip it out and the buyer also needs to buy or/and install a new one.

Planetary bombardment is usless as i costs more then blockading with one Carrier with a system wide Communications and Sensors.
 
Planetary bombardment can be quite useful if you plan to land forces on the planet. In a war you can't wait years for a planet to collaps due to lack of spare parts (IF there is one, i.e Terra nost likely had all necessary factories), you have to take the world NOW.

Same with anti-pirat ops. The Vagr understand "I can kick your balls" better than "I can starvé your cubs". So bombarding their "safe haven" delivers a clear message. And again, you can't wait outside Imperial territory for month on end.
 
I think that the Traveller universe has 2 major differences with the modern world regarding mothballed fleets.

1. TL
In the RW, TL is constantly advancing and a 100 year old warship is VERY outdated. Not just electronics but construction techniques as well. In Traveller, if a ship is built at TL 14, it is a viable TL14 design forever. Once the Imperium advanced to TL 15, there were many other ways to use the old TL14 design within the Imperium that didn't involve destroying the ship. Send it off to a Sector unit, or a Client State.

2. Advancing TL Time.
In the OTU, TL advances within the Imperium take centuries or millenium. Milieu 0 is TL12, MT is early TL16. That's over 1000 years to advance 4 TLs, Earth did that in a couple of centuries from TL 4 to early TL8 (now). Therefore, 100 year old ships will most likely NOT be technologically obsolete as in the RW. This makes their useful life just about as long as the hull can stay in one piece.

Once a hull becomes BER (Beyond Economical Repair), I would think it would be scrapped out.
 
A TL14 hull is a good investment for an upgrade to TL15 power plant, computer, weapons and defences.

Armour is the same at TL14 and TL15, jump and maneuver performance are probably not affected.
 
That depends Plankowner. For the OTU I think the IN may engage in rather wide TL upgrades at times, based on the expressed approach in HG...

"The Imperial Navy may procure ships of up to tech level 15, although it also procures ships at tech levels 10 through 14."

However the whole point of upgrading ships in the OTU may be moot depending on how literally one wants to take the line just above that...

"Equipment and components of a ship may always be equal to or less than the ship's tech level."

That seems to imply rather strongly that there are more than just simple plug and play systems at work and that dropping a tech level 15 fusion powerplant into a tech level 14 hull won't work.
 
Far Trader's point is an observable one, if I may refer to a example in TA-7 Fighting ships where an upgrade to TL-14/15 in the bridge command suite for a TL-14 heavy cruiser-class lowered the ceiling--and often caused newbies aboard trouble bonking their head :eek: instead of ducking who'd served on the former class without the new upgrades when reporting to the bridge! ;)
file_21.gif


:cool:

[edited for spelling]
 
Back
Top