This site is in archival mode. A replacement is being developed. In the meantime, please use the PBW2 Forums for community discussions. The replacement software for this site will use a unified account system with PBW2, and any newly created threads will carry over.
Welcome to Spaceempires.net
Login or Register

Search
Modules
· Content
· Downloads
· Forums
· Game Info
· Image Gallery
· Links
· Shipyards
· Topics
· Staff

User Info
· Welcome, Anonymous
Membership:
· New: Astorre
· New Today: 0
· New Yesterday: 0
· Overall: 3155

People Online:
· Visitors: 139
· Members: 0
· Total: 139

  

Spaceempires.net :: FWSN ship/fleet restructuring. :: View topic
Forum FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in


FWSN ship/fleet restructuring.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> Federated Worlds Star Navy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:24 am    Post subject: FWSN ship/fleet restructuring. Reply with quote

There needs to be a serious look at the FWSN needs for the future, in both combat and non-combat forms.

One of the major problems is the extreme lack of modern repair ships. My suggestion is to retool all Livingstones into a cheaper ship that has 10kt engine ports and enough armour to justify it travelling with a fleet, plus a few made into a Mallicus (or other supply & repair ship), followed by a fleet of very cheap, unarmoured repair ships (such as the Glass).

Another issue is the lack of upgrading for combat ships, the very least should be some maser->laser upgrades, along with some cargo upgrades for the obsolete Saint to Saint C designs.

Considering that the North needs a huge amount of effort by the FWSN, and individual System Lords (which will deprive some other areas of reinforcements), there should be a priority of at least one ship upgrade per border system each month.


System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that increasing the naval budget would be the single most effective way of increasing it's effectiveness. I have mentioned several times that I think the navy is underfunded. For example, I doubt that the commodites market would be so poorly managed if there was actually any money to be made there. The Navy should be by far it's biggest customer, but it hasn't the funds to just buy units off the shelf. Instead, it must order them on demand. On demand is usually somewhat cheaper, but trades delays in time-to-deployment for that small financial benefit. Without a solid customer base, the commodities market will never be anything more that a crippled joke.

As to the other matters, such as retrofits, and Area of Operations prioritizing; I'm no warrior, and never claimed to be. I'll leave those discussions for individuals more learned in these areas. However, I once again state my opinion that trying to force Senatorial Edicts into the areas of responsibility of other parties is a strategy destined to fail. Putting up even more red tape is no way to increase efficiency, no matter what institution you try to apply this to. In fact, it is far more likely to have the OPPOSITE effect.


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree about the lack of funding

Quote:
Instead, it must order them on demand. On demand is usually somewhat cheaper, but trades delays in time-to-deployment for that small financial benefit.


However, some kind of general purchasing plan would give the benefit of construction firms knowing what to buy, and the FWSN having what it needs, without the other issues of on demand construction.

Quote:
However, I once again state my opinion that trying to force Senatorial Edicts into the areas of responsibility of other parties is a strategy destined to fail.

I am not trying to force specifics, I am simply giving examples of what could be, in my opinion, improved. Having fleets of repair ships that don't travel with combat fleets (and in fact try to avoid any enemy contact whatsoever), yet use outdated and expensive equipment, seems to be a poor use of resources that could otherwise be put towards other efforts.

Quote:
Putting up even more red tape is no way to increase efficiency, no matter what institution you try to apply this to. In fact, it is far more likely to have the OPPOSITE effect.

The problem is that there anything to tape, as there is no general, Federation wide plan (or even a general regional plan).


System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Khizlek wrote:
The problem is that there anything to tape, as there is no general, Federation wide plan (or even a general regional plan).


I believe that responsibility would fall under the purview of the First Space Lord (I believe that is his title, correct me if I am mistaken). If he is failing in his responsibilities, then that should be addressed. Throwing more money at the navy, without it having a plan to use it, would be a waste. I believe the FSL has indicated that he would be willing to step aside, at least for a time, in order to allow a fresh mind to address these problems.

As for a listing of the navy's needs, commodity-wise: I believe that is a very good idea. Breaking that list down by AoO might be beneficial, as well. However, it might be more efficient to have each Ranking Officer keep their own list, that they can themselves update. After all, it is my understanding that the Ranking Officers are pretty much responsible for their own commodity purchases.


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
Skyburn
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 12, 2008

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Khizlek wrote:
The problem is that there anything to tape, as there is no general, Federation wide plan (or even a general regional plan).


The Navy does have a Federation-wide plan: http://www.spaceempires.net/ftopict-4778.html

It needs some updating, but it's a good foundation for any future changes.


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skyburn wrote:
Khizlek wrote:
The problem is that there anything to tape, as there is no general, Federation wide plan (or even a general regional plan).


The Navy does have a Federation-wide plan: http://www.spaceempires.net/ftopict-4778.html

It needs some updating, but it's a good foundation for any future changes.


This is like a dream list. Actually getting up to 320 ships would require a tremendous increase in Naval budget, plus having SL's and private parties actually building ships.

The comment about on demand ships, is a good one. Having this list, allows private firms and SL's to build ships and offer them up for purchase without having to go through the red tape to negotiate use of shipyards and what not. Of course Naval Design contracts are in the Marketplace if parties are interested in filling those orders as well.

As for upgrades, I would love to do upgrades each month, but then I have to go through and figure out what need to be upgraded, wether or not the ship is being used by a certain officers, etc. It is almost easier if the officers use their own budgets to perfom upgrades. If the need more funds, they can request them.

Yes a new repair strategy would be welcome along with new ship types.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Currently the Navy has 167 ships and bases. This is combat, patrol, repair, and transport ships.

So I will update the Future Naval projects list. Interested parties can build ships, and the Navy will gladly purchase them.

List has been updated. http://www.spaceempires.net/ftopicp-33877.html#33877


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Last edited by Kana on Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total


Back to top
Zastaver
Space Emperor


Joined: Feb 24, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well its a well known fact that the navy needs more funds to be in 5 different places at once. but befor we expand i beleave that modernizing should be more the priority as we have some rather painfully outdated ships.

stands up from his console after running some "numbers"

I'm sure theirs some who would be well behind a funding increase.


Captan Zastaver Alcora F.W.S.N. FSL of the navy.
abord the FWS Lycoris.

For all who have fallen before us, may we stand firm.


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I've explained in other discussions, my analysis indicates that the Navy is underfunded.

dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
kotau
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 06, 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just as an example I am losing ground on maints alone with my current budget. If it were not for the market I would have been bankrupt long ago. Thankfully the organics situation we are in now has helped me immensely.

I urge other Navy personnel to shed orgs in favor of mins and rads, as they are mostly useless when it comes to maints and shipbuilding costs.



Play By Committee IV, Join us!, Political Map, updated 2416.2


Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, the list of new ships needs to be prioritised, along with prioritising the upgrading of ships. Then a submission for the needed increase in minerals/rads, both for upgrades and new construction.

General questions & suggestions
Quote:
20 System Class Fleet Carriers (Heavy Carrier)
6 Saint-D Class or Other Carriers (Carrier)

Am I to understand that these would be additions to the fleets, not replacements?

Quote:
8 Cuspis III Class Escort Destroyers

Why even use these? Merge this role into the Patrol role (or remove it), as the Cuspis is covered by PD ships & antiship bombardment platforms, both of which do a better job.

Quote:
20 Incinerator Class Assault Cruisers
11 Stinger V Class Assault Destroyers

Many of these could use various DUC frigates/cruisers instead, using a mix to improve production rates and save on rads. After all, they perform the same role.

Quote:
15 Bolt Hurler III Class or Other Bombardment Destroyers

Why use a Destroyer hull? Frigates can easily fit in the needed missile packs, be cheaper, and don't have useless (as they should be at long distance, behind the assault ships) pd weapons. That, and they only need 10k supply, as they will be in a fleet.

Also, some thought should be given towards Externally mounted missiles for antiship work - the additional supply ships would easily cover the increased supply use.

Role questions
Quote:
23 Transport/Cargo Ships

What is the purpose of these transports:
-Carrying large numbers of units from main production bases to fleets (when in static position)/supply dumps (planet/cargo bases)?
-Fast transports to carry smaller amounts of cargo from supply dumps to fleets in the field (such as in Sundry)?

Quote:
39 Repair Ships

What is the purpose of these repair ships:
-Will these be slow (4 speed) or normal (5 speed) unarmoured repair ships (like the Makita or Glass) for repairing at WPs (or in 'safe' field areas)?
-Or will they be relatively heavily armoured ones, designed to accompany the combat fleets at all times (fleet repair types)?
-If fleet repair are used, could some be destroyers with extra supply (to reduce the need for supply ships, and allow Livingstone destroyers to be retrofitted)?

Quote:
16 Supply Ships

Would this amount to 3 repair per main fleet, or are these for the Patrol fleets as well?

Quote:
8 Patrol Leader Frigates/Destroyers
13 Patrol Carrier Frigates
20 Patrol Vessels (Falcon III, Tercel II, Star Hawk III, Mongoose III, etc...)

What will the purpose of these fleets:
A-General patrolling of a border system by a single fleet (with one fleet per system), destroying enemies that get through WP defences (so the main fleets don't have to move from the WP)?
B-Raiding fleets, designed to attack weak, undefended enemy shipping?
C-General purpose 'brigades', to be shifted around (up to 3 systems in any direction), giving temporary power to certain areas of conflict (for defence or offence)?

A & C can use similar designs & fleet compositions, but B would need tougher fleets with some extra utility ships, like repair, supply or fast transports.

Last of all
We need to figure out what the various roles of our equipment are - and what old equipment can be rapidly retooled for other uses.


System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A thorough review by the new incoming leader of the FWSN would be welcome.

In addition I would like to raise the following desires:
-Increase carrier numbers to 30-40% of total FWSN ships.
-Revise existing support ships (repair/supply/transport), to free up resources for carrier use.
-Create 3 'Reinforcement Fronts', consisting of NorthWest/Central, SouthWest & North, where forces can be shuttled around for needed defensive/offensive thrusts.
-Create a permanent 'over the warp horizon' scouting system, so that enemy movements in a system next our own can be observed.


System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see there has been no response to my various questions and suggestions...

System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
Skyburn
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 12, 2008

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would also be interested in learning the Navy's fleet expansion plans.

Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As am I.

If I can, I would suggest increasing carrier numbers, until they are roughly 30% of the total ship fleet.


System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still no official response I see.

System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If there are to be further planetary invasions, then there is one item I would like to see with a fleet expansion - the formation of 'Anti-Fighter Squadrons' (AFS); fleets containing carriers loaded with only space superiority fighters, and accompanied by only missile and fighter point defence ships.

This would provide some flexibility, as the whilst the AFS groups would free the much larger main fleets, allowing them to only worry about combating the mobile enemy elements.


System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
Skyburn
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 12, 2008

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We have enemy ships roaming through our space. There are also several known enemy fleets of great power near our space. Currently the Navy will have difficulty stopping any of them if they get serious about attacking us. I think the Navy needs to focus on achieving naval superiority.

Back to top
Khizlek
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 07, 2007

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If there was sufficient funding and organisation, then there would be reason why both couldn't be done, though I agree that improving our defences is a much higher priority.

System Lord Khizlek of DynaCorp Industries (PBC SEIV).


Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> Federated Worlds Star Navy All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download,
and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2010 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: SpaceEmpires.net News RSS Feed - Syndicate forums: SpaceEmpires.net Forums RSS Feed
Page Generation: 0.19 Seconds