Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 02, 2007, 07:47:42 AM
Active Naval Shipyards
Sevmash/State Center for Atomic Submarine Construction, Severodvinsk (formerly Shipyard 402)
Severodvinsk is the primary shipyard for the Russian Navy, which is now responsible for all nuclear submarine production, as well as Russian Navy diesel submarines. (Export diesels may be built elsewhere.) It is extremely well-equipped, with large building halls dating back to the Stalin-era. In the past, Severodvinsk was the cradle of Soviet ballistic missile subs, building Yankees, Deltas, and Typhoons. Equipped with special titanium-welding facilities, it also built Alfas, the Papa, and the single ill-fated Mike class, along with Oscars. With the loss of the primary aircraft carrier shipyard to Ukraine, there have been rumors that this huge shipyard may undergo some conversions in order to service Admiral Kuznetsov and perhaps move the aircraft carrier program forward.
A recent press report (in May 1995) noted that even this mammoth facility is not immune to the economic crisis facing the Russian defense industry, however. Heating in Severodvinsk has been off in residences since April, and the shipyard itself was temporarily running in "emergency energy consumption mode."
Admiralty-Sudomekh/United Admiralty (formerly Shipyards 194 and 196), St. Petersburg
Made up of two shipyards sharing adjacent space in St. Petersburg, United Admiralty has been responsible for a number of submarines, including Victor II/IIIs, Alfas, Kilos, and a host of experimental designs. Today, Admiralty-Sudomekh builds export Kilos, and will be the home of the new Project 636 improved Kilo, should it go into series production. Absent export orders, United Admiralty may cease submarine operations.
Yantar/Kaliningrad (formerly Shipyard 820), Kaliningrad
Yantar is a surface vessel center, historically responsible for Krivaks, Alligators, Udaloys, and Ivan Rogovs. Today, the Neustrashimyy-class frigates are being built there.
Baltic Shipyard (formerly Shipyard 189), St. Petersburg
Responsible for nuclear surface vessels, the Baltic shipyard has built nuclear icebreakers, the Whiskey-class submarines, and the SSV-33 space support ships. Today, naval production centers around the fourth and last Kirov-class battlecruiser, Petr Velikiy.
Northern Shipyard (formerly Shipyard 190), St. Petersburg
The Northern Shipyard was called "Zhdanov" for most of its history, until a name change in 1989. Udaloys were once built here; today, Northern continues to build Sovremennyys.
Komsomol'sk (formerly Shipyard 199), on the Amur River (Far East)
Komsomol'sk is primarily a submarine facility, which once built the smaller SSBNs (earlier Yankees and Delta Is), but eventually had to turn over SSBN construction to Severodvinsk because its location (near shallows) prevented the larger vessels from being launched. The Akula SSNs were built here, as were some Victor IIIs and Kilos. President Y'eltsin made a much publicized announcement that Komsomol'sk will be out of the submarine business in 1996.
Krasnoye Sormovo (formerly Shipyard 112), Nizhny Novgorod
Krasnoye Sormovo produced Charlies, Victors, and Tangos; today, it is responsible for Sierra and Kilo production. An inland shipyard, nuclear submarines historically were shipped off to Severodvinsk via waterway for fitting out while the diesel subs went south through the Volga to the Black Sea. Submarines are no longer built here, the yard having phased out of submarine construction in 1993.
Former Soviet shipyards in Ukraine
Nikolayev North (formerly Shipyard 445), Nikolayev
The last of the Slavas remains incomplete here, to be finished and delivered to the Ukrainian Navy as their flagship. Apparently naval construction is to end with the delivery of Vilna Ukraina, for it is reported that Nikolayev North is going to be building floating hotels.
Black Sea/Nikolayev South (formerly Shipyard 444), Nikolayev
Once the heart of the aviation-ship program, Nikolayev South has been responsible for the Moskvas, the Kievs, and the Kuznetsovs. Today only the Varyag remains, last of the Kuznetsov class CVs, her fate undecided. Apparently some civil production has been undertaken in this yard; a decision on Varyag may be required soon in order to make room for merchant construction.
Zaliv/Butoma (formerly Shipyard 532), Kerch, The Crimea
This yard is notable for producing Krivaks. Whether or not Ukraine will continue to build/complete/modernize Krivaks here is unknown.
-------------------------
As you can see from the above report, each shipyard concentrates on a particular type of ship and this is the type of thing I would like to bring into Aurora. I can see several options.
1) Have each shipyard be assigned a particular class of ship to build. This is per shipyard, not per population. Assignment of this class would involve some cost in retooling the yard. I am considering either the cost of one ship or perhaps half that. The cost of changing from one class to another would depend on the difference between the two ships and would either the refit cost (from the old to new class) or the cost of the new class, whichever was lower. The shipyard could then be given a production run so it would build several of the same type until ordered to stop or it completed the order. This would create a more realistic situation where deciding to build a lot of different ship types would have an additional cost, as it would in the real world.
2) This option is as above but in addition each shipyard would have a limit to the maximum size class it could build. In this case, you could build different size shipyards and expand them later, or more likely simply have a small shipyard component in the same way as maintenance facilities and allow multiple components per shipyard.
3) This is based on the above ideas but is a more radical change. Each population would have a single, total shipbuilding capacity based on multiples of a much smaller shipyard unit. For example, there could be a factory-sized unit that created a shipyard capacity of 10 (with bonuses for technology). Forty of these would cost the same as a current shipyard and create a capacity of 400. That population-wide capacity could then be devoted to certain classes using the same principle as option 1)
For example, assume you had a planet with a capacity of 2000. You might devote 400 of that capacity to building Kalinin II class freighters. The cost of the retooling would be equal to the capacity so in this case it would cost 400 to assign that chunk of the yard to building Kalinins. There would be a set time for retooling, probably six months but I would do some research to establish a reasonable figure. As the Kalinin costs 472 BP, you would produce one every 1.2 years. Another 400 might be dedicated to Udaloy II survey ships, which cost 531 and would be built every 1.32 years. Finally, the remaining 1200 could be dedicated to Sovremenny IIA class destroyers (886 BP), which would be turned out every 7.4 months.
Unassigning yard space would cost nothing but you would then pay cost and time to reassign it. While this would allow individual ships to be built faster than at the moment, it wouldn't increase the overall amount of shipbuilding. It would also allow smaller yards to be created, perhaps to build specific ships at a certain population. There would be a few complexities. For example, when additional yard space was created, either by building or technology improvement, that would have to be assigned and the player may want to assign it to existing ship types. I would have to track how much additional capacity was assigned and when it would become available. I think commander shipbuilding bonuses would be applied to each ship type, not to the overall capacity. So in the example above, a commander with a 20% bonus would increase the Kalinnin and Udaloy capacities to 480 each and the Sovremenny capacity to 1440. He wouldn't create 400 spare capacity.
I'm not sure if there would need to be some type of minimum build time. While a shipyard creating a warship every few weeks seems unrealistic, its likely that would really consist of multiple warships in a production line with one being delivered every few weeks. Perhaps after retooling, one option might be to simulate that by having the first 1 or 2 units build more slowly but I think that would probably be an unncessary complexity and could instead be simulated as part of the overall retooling time.
If any of the above options were used, there may have to be some alternative type of 'shipyard' for overhauls and repairs. Refits could be handled in shipyards set up to build the new class. I might even consider changing overhauls to be done by maintenance facilities. In that case, spare parts would be replaced over time when the ship was in orbit of a maintenance facility and the overhaul clock would slowly rewind. I would work out a formula for the additional costs and the rate of spare part replacement/overhaul rewind would depend on the size of the facilities compared to the size of the ship.
Comments and suggestions welcome
Steve
Post by: Randy on October 02, 2007, 09:18:29 AM
Retooling costs what? Build points? Money? Minerals??
I'd lean towards option one - its close enough to reality without going overboard in details.
I'd also add an option to retool for "overhaul" (or whatever you want to call it) so that a spaceyard can be dedicated to the overhaul and repair tasks.
Other than that, it looks good to me
Post by: Erik L on October 02, 2007, 09:39:02 AM
Say you have a shipyard tooled to build a Ship O Doom BC. Down the line, you upgrade the class (better engines, fire control, etc). Are the SOD BC yards capable of builing SOD II's?
My preference in this case is a smaller retooling cost, or possibly none, depending on the "severity" of the upgrades.
Post by: Þórgrímr on October 02, 2007, 09:45:25 AM
This would simulate the way most shipyards are configured, Those Russian SY examples would be considered a shpiyard with all their Slipways configured for one design.
The nautical term ways is an alternative name for slipway. A ship undergoing construction in a shipyard is said to be on the ways. If a ship were scrapped there, she is said to be broken up in the ways.
Cheers,
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 02, 2007, 11:24:22 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I like option 1, with a small caveat.
Say you have a shipyard tooled to build a Ship O Doom BC. Down the line, you upgrade the class (better engines, fire control, etc). Are the SOD BC yards capable of builing SOD II's?
My preference in this case is a smaller retooling cost, or possibly none, depending on the "severity" of the upgrades.
The cost of changing from one class to another would depend on the differences between the two ships and would be either the refit cost (from the old to new class) or the cost of the new class, whichever was lower.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 02, 2007, 11:31:51 AM
Quote from: "Randy"
Retooling costs what? Build points? Money? Minerals??For option 1, I would set it up as a shipyard task based on the same BP, money and minerals as building a ship of that class. Makes it nice and straightforward. If that seems too much, then maybe half of the full build cost.
Quote
I'd lean towards option one - its close enough to reality without going overboard in details.OK
Quote
I'd also add an option to retool for "overhaul" (or whatever you want to call it) so that a spaceyard can be dedicated to the overhaul and repair tasks.
I think that whatever I end up doing with shipyards, I am going to change overhauls to a non-shipyard task that is handled automatically by maintenance facilities. It should reduce micromanagement and will allow smaller populations to carry out maintenance without having to commit to building shipyards. I'll post on this in the mechanics forum. However, I really like this idea in principle so I will use it for shipyards dedicated to repair operations.
Steve
Post by: Randy on October 02, 2007, 03:52:31 PM
Quote
For option 1, I would set it up as a shipyard task based on the same BP, money and minerals as building a ship of that class.
I'd say go for he BP and money, forget the minerals. You mostly need to just re-adjust the machinery (and reprogram robots, etc) to build the new design.
If you want it to cost minerals too, base it on the same minerals you use to build a SY in the first place and use some fraction of those.
The cost needs to stay as a very low fraction of ship cost. Otherwise eg. that Ship O Death SD will take 10 years to configure the SY before you can even begin building the first one...
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 02, 2007, 05:17:46 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
That all sounds reasonable.QuoteFor option 1, I would set it up as a shipyard task based on the same BP, money and minerals as building a ship of that class.
I'd say go for he BP and money, forget the minerals. You mostly need to just re-adjust the machinery (and reprogram robots, etc) to build the new design.
If you want it to cost minerals too, base it on the same minerals you use to build a SY in the first place and use some fraction of those.
Quote
The cost needs to stay as a very low fraction of ship cost. Otherwise eg. that Ship O Death SD will take 10 years to configure the SY before you can even begin building the first one...
Unfortunately, if it is a very low fraction of ship cost then no decision is required and I might as well not bother. The decision to change the type of ship that a shipyard can build should be a significant one and that means the cost has to be significant too. As in the real world, retooling to build one ship should be expensive in per unit cost terms.
I have done some quick research on the internet to try and find some retooling times. I couldn't find much but here are a couple of examples
In 1941, a shipyard called the new
Post by: Doug Olchefske on October 02, 2007, 06:03:39 PM
Rather than costing BP or minerals to switch designs, you may want to just use time. Having to wait three months (or more/less) to set up the supply chain to produce a design in a given yard would be a good incentive to build it somewhere else.
Post by: Kurt on October 02, 2007, 06:20:32 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I am wondering whether to add a little more detail to shipyards, although I am concerned it may be unnecessary detail so I am interested in opinions. In the real world, shipyards are usually capable of handling ships up to a certain size and are set up for one particular type of ship. As an example, here is an extract from a report on Russian shipyards in 1995
<snip>
Steve
Steve -
I like this concept. One of the variants I played around with for Starfire was different sized yards - Capital Ship Yard, Escort Yard, Cruiser Yard, Commerical Yard. One can be refitted to any of the others for a price, kind of like converting a mining installation to an automated mining installation.
Or, alternately, the yard type could be treated just like research bonues are for research installations. In other words, if a commercial yard works on a warship it does so at a certain basic rate, if it works on a dedicated commerical ship then it does so at its maximum rate. This would allow the player to have some flexibility, albiet at a price.
I also liked
Post by: Erik L on October 02, 2007, 08:00:45 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"I am wondering whether to add a little more detail to shipyards, although I am concerned it may be unnecessary detail so I am interested in opinions. In the real world, shipyards are usually capable of handling ships up to a certain size and are set up for one particular type of ship. As an example, here is an extract from a report on Russian shipyards in 1995
<snip>
Steve
Steve -
I like this concept. One of the variants I played around with for Starfire was different sized yards - Capital Ship Yard, Escort Yard, Cruiser Yard, Commerical Yard. One can be refitted to any of the others for a price, kind of like converting a mining installation to an automated mining installation.
Or, alternately, the yard type could be treated just like research bonues are for research installations. In other words, if a commercial yard works on a warship it does so at a certain basic rate, if it works on a dedicated commerical ship then it does so at its maximum rate. This would allow the player to have some flexibility, albiet at a price.
The biggest issue I see here is the fact that there are no real set ship types in Aurora, though I do like that idea. Possibly something along the lines of a HS range? I.E. Under 100 HS, 101-200HS, 201-400HS, etc.
Quote from: "Kurt"
I also liked
Post by: sloanjh on October 03, 2007, 12:32:09 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Randy"The cost needs to stay as a very low fraction of ship cost. Otherwise eg. that Ship O Death SD will take 10 years to configure the SY before you can even begin building the first one...Unfortunately, if it is a very low fraction of ship cost then no decision is required and I might as well not bother. The decision to change the type of ship that a shipyard can build should be a significant one and that means the cost has to be significant too. As in the real world, retooling to build one ship should be expensive in per unit cost terms.
I think Steve's right here - I remember reading that one of the the things the Royal Navy is very good at is building "one-offs", i.e. ship classes with only one unit. The problem is that the unit cost is MUCH larger than for series production, since none of the design etc. work is amortized over multiple units. As much as I hate the thought, I think the retooling time should be 50% - 100% of the total build time (this would also simulate the time needed to do the actual design work - somehow I think it should take longer than hitting F5 and clicking on a few components :-)
John
Post by: Randy on October 03, 2007, 12:35:53 PM
Quote
I think the retooling time should be 50% - 100% of the total build time
I was thinking in the 25-50% range (closer to the 25% - maybe 33% would be about right)
Randy
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2007, 06:37:36 AM
Post by: wildfire142 on October 04, 2007, 11:34:02 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2007, 01:11:41 PM
Quote from: "wildfire142"
Would the extra slipways speed up production of the ships or just incresae the number under construction at anyone time?
Slipways would effectively be what shipyards are now. They would build one ship at the same speed that shipyards do now. 'Shipyards' would become a higher level organizational entity that determined what its subordinate slipways could build.
For example, using this model a population might have the Motovolosk Shipyard that has three Slipways and is configured to build Sovremenny class destroyers. Those three slipways would allow it to build up to three destroyers at once. If the Motovolosk Shipyard retooled for Kirov class frigates that its three slipways could buld up to three Kirovs at once but could no longer build Sovremennys. The same population might also have the Zhdanov Shipyard, with four slipways, that builds Kalinin class freighters and the Severodvinsk shipyard, with two slipways, that builds Udaloy class survey ships.
The population would have three shipyards in total, with nine slipways between them, and could therefore build up to nine ships. However, it could build a maximum of three Sovremennys, four Kalinins and two Udaloys. No other ships types could be built unless a shipyard was retooled, in which case all its slipways would be capable of building the new ship type. This type of model is the closest to reality I think.
You would also find that if a shipyard is building destroyers, it will probably continue to build destroyers of different types because it will be cheaper to retool to similar classes (based on the retool cost of refit or new, whichever is lower).
Steve
Post by: Erik L on October 04, 2007, 01:40:45 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 05, 2007, 06:50:36 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Can a shipyard be tooled for multiple classes? For example, a Geode class geo survey ship, and a Kepler class grav survey ship are identical, except the type of survey instruments.
Each shipyard would be tooled for one class only. That is the choice between building extra shipyards and extra slipways. Extra slipways are cheaper but you can only build one class per shipyard. Extra shipyards are more expensive but you gain more flexibility in what you can build concurrently.
You could also build your Geodes and then retool for the Keplers. As the two ships are very similar, the retooling cost would be a lot lower then retooling from scratch. Note I haven't coded any of this yet, I am still at the design stage on possible shipyard changes.
Steve
Post by: Pete_Keller on October 05, 2007, 01:19:41 PM
You can start out with slipways that build 5000ton ships, then expand them later to build larger ships.
That way the shipyard/slipways to build a superdreadnaught will cost more than a small one to build frigates. And it allows a colony to build "system patrol vessels" using a small shipyard and slipway without having the ability to build the above mentioned superdreadnaught.
Pete
Post by: Þórgrímr on October 05, 2007, 02:06:39 PM
Cheers,
Post by: wildfire142 on October 05, 2007, 03:34:14 PM
Post by: Brian Neumann on October 05, 2007, 04:55:00 PM
A seperate question for dealing with slipways. In real life a crash project would grab extra people to get the job done faster. How about allowing extra slipways to add a bonus to the production speed of the ship under construction. Say around 20% with a max of doubling the rate of construction. For each extra slipway however add 40% to the monetary cost and a lesser (say 5% or 10%) to the mineral cost. The extra money covers all the overtime and the minerals cover the extra wear and tear on equipment, and the inventible wastage that occurs with a crash project.
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on October 05, 2007, 08:16:57 PM
Note that this means that SY upgrade/build/retooling costs would vary: increasing capacity would depend on the number of SW, adding a SW would depend on the capacity, and retooling would depend on both.
I also like Brian's suggestion about rush jobs.
Questions: If I've got a SY with 10 SW and capacity C will there be a build command to "split" the facility by building a new SY with capacity C and assigning some of the SW to the new yard, i.e. one SY with 6 SW and the other with 4 after the build? Will there be a command to drop capacity of a SY complex (to make it cheaper to add SW)?
John
Post by: Pete_Keller on October 05, 2007, 10:52:51 PM
This allows for battle damage as well as upgrades. I upgrade the shipyard to have more capacity, I then upgrade my slipways one at a time as they become available. Once they are all upgraded (or mostly) then you can switch over to another hull class.
My only problem with this whole idea the Electric Boat Shipyard. During the early 1980s, it was building Los Angeles class subs(~6900 Tons), Ohio class subs (~18800 Tons) and refitting Sturgeon class subs (~4800 Tons). One Shipyard, with 2 slipways, and a pair of drydocks.
Pete
Post by: Pete_Keller on October 06, 2007, 06:57:59 AM
Quote from: "Pete_Keller"
I think that both the shipyard and the slipway should be granular. You cannot build higher than the lowest of both of them, and the total hull spaces of units in the shipyard cannot exceed the shipyard's total.
Granularity should be around 10HS not 1 HS, 1HS makes it too fiddly.
Quote from: "Pete_Keller"
My only problem with this whole idea the Electric Boat Shipyard. During the early 1980s, it was building Los Angeles class subs(~6900 Tons), Ohio class subs (~18800 Tons) and refitting Sturgeon class subs (~4800 Tons). One Shipyard, with 2 slipways, and a pair of drydocks.
Pete
We should split the current shipyard into 3 separate items.
Shipyards are the main area, that is where the "industrial work" gets done.
Slipways are primarily designed to build new ships, but they can overhaul, repair, and refit ships at a penalty (25% maybe). I added overhaul in the list for forward bases. I have a shipyard with a slipway, but no maintenance facility (possibly due to combat damage) and this way you could overhaul a ship using the old method.
Drydocks (or spacedocks) are the third item. They allow overhaul, repair, and refits at normal cost, but building ships is at a penalty (again maybe 25%)
One of the reasons I suggest this is the US Navy during WWII Pacific campaigns had "Destroyer tenders" and "Floating Drydocks" forward deployed to fix battle damage.
The drydocks were modular, like we were talking about.
We then could then add 2 "ship items" called "Tender" and "Drydock"
Tenders allow repairs of battle damage like Damage Control without using up replacement parts. You could also be alongside and perform a minor refit to replace the replacement parts.
Drydock or "mobile spacedock" would allow quicker repairs of battle damage and quicker minor refits. (replace the replacement parts at double speed maybe). drydocks are large, and cannot be mounted on a ship with engines. You MUST tow them. Which forces you to develop a tug.
Pete
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 07, 2007, 09:33:39 AM
Quote from: "Pete_Keller"
I think that the slipways should be "modular" like the maintenance facilities are now.
You can start out with slipways that build 5000ton ships, then expand them later to build larger ships.
That way the shipyard/slipways to build a superdreadnaught will cost more than a small one to build frigates. And it allows a colony to build "system patrol vessels" using a small shipyard and slipway without having the ability to build the above mentioned superdreadnaught.
I agree with the modular idea but the granularity will have to be much smaller than 5000 tons. One of my design goals with Aurora is to have ships of many different sizes, rather than the everyone has 30HS destroyers situation in Starfire. To this end I am trying to avoid anything that pushes players of all races into designing ships of a certain size. In this case, everyone would start building 5000 ton ships. Perhaps the best thing would be to buld a shipyard for half the current cost then have a modular slipway with a granularity of maybe 200 tons, the same as maintenance facilities. The shipyard itself will be useless until its slipways are built.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 07, 2007, 09:37:50 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I like Pete's suggestion too, but I think the capacity modularity needs to be at the SY (not slipways (SW)) level, and should be small granularity (in tonnage) like your recent change to MF (i.e. much more granular than 5000 tons - maybe the 50 ton level (1HS) ?). Since all SW associated with a SY build the same thing, it both doesn't make any sense and is much harder to track if different SW have different capacity.Yes, I realised that this might get a little complicated. I agree that having all slipways the same size would be a good idea. If a shipyard has three slipways and wants to increase slipway size by 200 tons, it will have to pay for 600 tons so that all three increase equally. If a new shipway is to be added, it will have to be added at the same size as the existing ones. Retooling will depend on the overall capacity of all slipways.
Note that this means that SY upgrade/build/retooling costs would vary: increasing capacity would depend on the number of SW, adding a SW would depend on the capacity, and retooling would depend on both.
Quote
Questions: If I've got a SY with 10 SW and capacity C will there be a build command to "split" the facility by building a new SY with capacity C and assigning some of the SW to the new yard, i.e. one SY with 6 SW and the other with 4 after the build? Will there be a command to drop capacity of a SY complex (to make it cheaper to add SW)?
Probably not for a first cut but this is the type of detail I would add later.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 07, 2007, 09:39:19 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
I like pete's suggestion as well.
A seperate question for dealing with slipways. In real life a crash project would grab extra people to get the job done faster. How about allowing extra slipways to add a bonus to the production speed of the ship under construction. Say around 20% with a max of doubling the rate of construction. For each extra slipway however add 40% to the monetary cost and a lesser (say 5% or 10%) to the mineral cost. The extra money covers all the overtime and the minerals cover the extra wear and tear on equipment, and the inventible wastage that occurs with a crash project.
Some type of crash construction project is a definite possibility. However, I will probably get the basic system working first and then look at this type of extra functionality.
Steve
Post by: kdstubbs on October 07, 2007, 11:24:11 AM
The time needed to produce a new design for a new ship is usually done while the old design is still in production. In the US we produce mini upgrades to existing designs through a process called preplanned product improvement. The DDG-51 class Arleigh Burke Destroyers went through three block upgrades, the last added an entire helicopter deck and hangar to the Destroyer design, adding over twenty feet IIRC to the total ship length.
when retooling a yard with multiple slipways, you begin retooling one of the slipways at a time while still manufacturing the older class in the remaining ways. E.G., if you had four slipways, and assuming it took six months per slipway to retool, then over a two year period you would go from 4 DDG, to 3 old class, in the first six months, to 2 old, 1 new, 1 retooling, to 1 old, 2 new, 1 retooling, to 3 new and one retooling at 18 months. to 4 new at 24 months. You get the picture.
The older class can be upgraded to the new design or to a new block during a SLEP (service life extension program) dry docking period. usually taking up to two years for a CVN and much less for a smaller warship. So the idea of an assembly line producing a standard freighter hull makes sense. Block upgrades could be done every five or ten years to keep the fleet modernized, etc.
Steve, you will have a lot of fun coding slipways into 2.3
Hope this helps
Kevin
Post by: Pete_Keller on October 07, 2007, 05:45:56 PM
Pete
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 17, 2007, 08:15:29 AM
Quote from: "kdstubbs"
I enjoyed reading this post. now for some historical perspectives. One Caveat. I am not an expert on shipbuilding. But I have studied this somewhat for WWI. During the 19 months of US participation in WWI, the US Government laid down 1000 slipways in multiple shipyards. They were producing approximately 3 million gross deadweight tons of new ships by Nov 1918. This laid the foundation for American production in the Interwar period and during world war II.
The time needed to produce a new design for a new ship is usually done while the old design is still in production. In the US we produce mini upgrades to existing designs through a process called preplanned product improvement. The DDG-51 class Arleigh Burke Destroyers went through three block upgrades, the last added an entire helicopter deck and hangar to the Destroyer design, adding over twenty feet IIRC to the total ship length.
when retooling a yard with multiple slipways, you begin retooling one of the slipways at a time while still manufacturing the older class in the remaining ways. E.G., if you had four slipways, and assuming it took six months per slipway to retool, then over a two year period you would go from 4 DDG, to 3 old class, in the first six months, to 2 old, 1 new, 1 retooling, to 1 old, 2 new, 1 retooling, to 3 new and one retooling at 18 months. to 4 new at 24 months. You get the picture.
Thanks for this detail. I have built this concept into the new shipyard rules, which allow you to start getting ready for the next class while you are still building the existing one. This should result in a similar situation to above where some slipways are building the newer class while others are still working on the old one.
Steve
Post by: kdstubbs on October 20, 2007, 01:24:31 PM
Glad to be of help
Kevin
Post by: ocie on December 07, 2007, 04:23:15 PM
-=[ Shipyards Around The World ]=-
This page has a listing of most or all of the known shipyards, shipbuilders, shipbreakers and repair facilities that operate around the world. Many of these yards and businesses are the ones who build and service the modern vessels of today.
This database is owned & maintained by, and is Copyright
Post by: SteveAlt on December 08, 2007, 07:14:36 AM
Quote from: "ocie"
This page has a listing of most or all of the known shipyards, shipbuilders, shipbreakers and repair facilities that operate around the world. Many of these yards and businesses are the ones who build and service the modern vessels of today.
Thanks!
I have added this list to the database and added an auto-rename button to the Manage Shipyards tab. If you select a shipyard and hit auto-rename, one of thse names is selected. You can keep pressing auto-rename until you find one you like.
Steve