Perhaps every time a ship undergoes an overhaul it should be treated as a new commission and task force bonus reduced by 50%.
The idosyncratic British version of 'commission' is not shared by the USN. I can't speak for other navies. I would be in favor of making TF bonus easier to get, and having it decay if the ship sits in port too long.
"During the early stages of the Falklands War it was announced that Bulwark would be reactivated and sent south to support the fleet, and then remain as a headquarters hulk at Port Stanley following the war. A rapid ship survey, however, determined that in addition to the unrepaired fire damage suffered in 1980, she had deteriorated too much for this to be practicable." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bulwark_(R08))
Yes. That doesn't mean they were going to bring her up to full service standards. She was destined to be a hulk, not a carrier, after the war.
I guess it depends on whether its maintained or unmaintained reserve.
(Following snipped for length). It appears that British practice here is somewhat different from USN practice, at least as executed. To provide some context, I'm a tour guide on the USS Iowa, so all of my serious study of things like mothballing comes from her and her sisters. AFAIK, they were kept significantly less ready than the examples you give, even though they were the first line of the reserve fleet. Then again, we didn't have the RN's ruinous fiscal and manpower problems, so there wasn't much reason to keep ships on such a quick reserve.
But the Invincible did change a gearbox underway (see earlier post). However you need at least two shafts. I suspect it was cost not ability to change reduction gears that killed the Spruances. There are cases were they cut holes in the hull to replace machinery, but not cheap.
You have yet to convince me that Invincible can/did change a turbine
underway, let alone the gearing. Are gas turbines much, much easier to change than steam turbines/boilers? Yes. But other things aren't. Gearing is a prominent example (reduction gears are big, heavy, and expensive. Iowa's inspection covers are locked because a popular way to avoid going to sea involved throwing something into them) but there are lots and lots of others.
From a quick wiz round the internet it appears that the removal of the crane did not give any more cells. (https://www.dsiac.org/resources/dsiac_journal/fall-2014-volume-1-number-2/promising-future-us-navy-vertical-launching).
Not exactly. The Ticos aren't getting more cells installed after the crane is removed, but the Flight II and later Burkes were built without the cranes and did get the extra cells.
I haven't read all the thread yet but with regard to the idea of reserve or mothballed ships, one option could be to remove overhaul as a task and instead have different 'maintenance states' for ships (set by orders).
Assuming my suggestion for maintenance capacity is in force...
1) No Maintenance: Doesn't count against maintenance capacity and clock advances normally (even if in the same location as MF). No restriction on movement.
2) Normal Maintenance: When in the same location as MF, counts against maintenance capacity and clock doesn't advance. Normal maintenance costs. No restriction on movement.
3) Docked: When in the same location as MF, counts against maintenance capacity and clock goes backward at slow speed (perhaps 1-2x speed). Small increase in maintenance costs. A time penalty before movement - perhaps a few hours.
4) Dry Dock. Effectively same as overhaul. When in the same location as MF, counts against maintenance capacity and clock goes backward at fast speed. Maintenance costs as per current overhaul. Time penalty of perhaps 1-2 weeks before movement.
5) Reserve. Requires maintenance facilities but as if the ship was much smaller, perhaps 25% size. Clock does not advance. Maintenance costs 1/4 normal. Time penalty of 2 months before movement.
6) Mothballed. Requires maintenance facilities but as if the ship was much smaller, perhaps 10% size. Clock does not advance. Maintenance costs 1/10th normal. Time penalty of maybe 6 months before movement.
A task group containing ships with status of anything but 1 + 2 would not be able to move unless those ships were detached. These are just rough estimates to give a flavour of the idea, rather than set in stone. Interested in comments on the principle.
Overall, I like it, although I would suggest that 2 and 3 need to be altered. The problem is that when a ship is tied up, it's normally not ready for immediate steaming. If nothing else, you have things like crew on liberty. Status 2 would be the ship being kept ready, with crew rest not happening (maybe just freeze the clock as-is) and the maintenance clock continuing to tick at a diminished rate (maybe 25%), while at 3, the maintenance clock stops and the crew can rest.
(Or just go with sublight's suggestion)
Actually, implementing this might help in other areas, too. Might the same mechanism be used to make civilian hangars take way, way longer to launch ships than do military hangars?
I'm thinking this is a good idea taken to far. I would suggest simplifying the list down to just Maintenance: None/Docked/Reserve.
1) None - As stated.
2) Docked - Required for shore leave. Normal maintenance/slow rewind as suggested if MF present. The small delay is the time required to recall the crew.
3) Reserve - As stated.
'Dry Dock' could become whatever ends up happening with hanger repair, and 'Mothballed' could be handwaved away as scrapping a ship for components and then rebuilding from components if/when necessary.
I like this. It's simpler, and accurately reflects what's going on, although you need to add a 'refit' option.
