Random thoughts on future techs

[Kaiser Kirk]

Information
Current "aviation ship design"

Conversions
Conversions are inherently inefficient. Multiply required weights by 1.5.

That was based on the oddly small airgroups of the BB/BC conversions.

Going forward, should be changed to 'weights and space'


Comment / Explanation :
One great concern to me is that carriers & in particular their air groups are underpriced in Navalism.

I feel that we look at WW2 and the host of small carriers the RN and USN had, and feel we should have some of the same.  However, this neglects these were a wartime contingency the two largest economic powers in the world, larger and richer than any N7 PC.

That is why I was proposing the brand new 'mercantile construction carrier'
to meet these historical categories, which would be cheaper but not cheap.
I freely admit it violates Snip's KISS, so folks may not wish to explore that route. 

[Jefgte]

...We'd build the original hulls of a Langley or an Argus as mercantile hulls (1/4 cost) and get a warship out of it - that would be the problem.

1/4 cost, certainly not , air groups count as armament therefore would exceed 2% => Cost 100%.

"A 12,000t oiler costs $3 & 3BP (armament 2% max) with mercantille rules.
If you rebuild it as an aircraft carrier, its weight will be a maximum of 12000t, its additional cost will be 9$ & 9BP."

[Kaiser Kirk]

This has been quiet for a couple days, so I'll try to write a considered post tomorrow (Weds) to move the conversation forward :)

[Kaiser Kirk]

So I was up for watching TV and playing with the Naval Artillery tool,
but not for reading/digesting/ and replying to the carrier discussion.

The following table might be a little hard to understand...at least in the preview the columns are all offset.
the key part is the middle with the KG Short and Shortfall columns.

The KG short is the shortfall between the N7 max allowed shell weight, and the historical
weights. As you can see, there really is not a shortfall.

the Shortfall is just the ME needed for the historical gun, vs. the ME provided on the chart.

I was only looking at the last generation of Pre-WWII guns,
with the Italian and French being earlier in the 1930s.

There seems to be a consistent shortfall for guns over 12"
of roughly 83% of the ME they should have.
0.83 * 1.2 = 0.996

That is consistent with my having noted that the current 12"- MR numbers seem "high"

In My Opinion :
A 1937 tech allowing 20% more ME for guns of 311mm+ seems in order.
A 1942 tech would then add Automatic for guns 210mm -




        Historic                                        Navalism 7                   
        KG    LBS            Date of Design                            KG    Lbs           
Gun    Cal    Shell        MV    ME            KG short    Shortfall        Actual Cal    max cal    Max Shell +20%        ME    MV   
USN 16"    50    1227    2700    739    7886    1939        99%    83%        50    60    1221    2686    6550    673   
USN 16"    45    1227    2700    701    7100    1936        99%    83%        45    60    1221    2686    5895    639   
USN 14" mk11    50    682    1500    823    5470.5    1937        110%    86%        50    60    753    1656    4725    728   
12    50    518    1140    762    3562.5    1939        99%    105%        50    60    515.1    1133    3750    859   
RN 16    45    1080    2375    747    7139.5    1938        113%    83%        45    60    1221    2686    5895    639