aebrain wrote (in addition to interesting stuff about making a computer in
your own kitchen):
> 4000 tonne frigate costs about $800 mill these days - 5 tonnes/
Oops--a 10,000t FT ship costs about 350_points_ , therefore
3500MCr.
Modern Frigate $800M/4000t = $200,000 per ton
NAC DDH (the famous _Hypothetical_ class) 4000t = 40 mass times
3.5 = 140 points = 1400MCr, ie about Cr350,000 per ton. Or Cr1.75 per dollar.
Sanity check:
US GDP $8,510,000,000,000 Military budget (rate) 3.40% Military budget ($)
289,340,000,000
> 1 Cr per $25 = Cr 11,573,600,000
Now, some of my figures are rough, but I'd say that the USN has somewhat more
than 4200 points worth of ships.
On the other hand, if we use $1 = Cr 1.75, we wind up with 186,082 points
worth of ships. My initial feel is that that's rather high.
Comments?
On Sat, 13 May 2000 23:27:48 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Now, some of my figures are rough, but I'd say that the USN has
I didn't check your math or anything, however this is based on current
peacetime spending. What would the numbers be for the US Navy during World War
II? The NAC and the other forces are essentially on a war footing.
Actually, it might be more realistic to compare to the British navy in the
19th century, with periods of war prevalent enough to require a sufficiently
large standing navy. I may do some digging to see if any of my books give an
idea of the cost of 19th century navies.
> I didn't check your math or anything, however this is based on
True but not what I'm getting at. We're trying to get a SWAG for the dollar to
credit ratio. Today's figures happened to be conveniently available and as
good a starting point as any. If you like, I've got a British Imperial
Military Geography handbook, ca 1905 IIRC, which tells this sort of thing. If
I can find it.
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> aebrain wrote (in addition to interesting stuff about making a
OK, there's a missing order of magnitude. 1 Cr = $2.50
> On the other hand, if we use $1 = Cr 1.75, we wind up with
So call it 100,000 pts (at $2.50 a Cr) for the World's Only Superpower.
100 Super Dreads equivalent, for the equivalent of the NAC+NSL+FSE+ESU.
Sounds about right-ish.
How many carriers does the USN have now? Better yet, how many
non-combatant
ships does the USN have? I suspect that if you add up the equivalent costs of
all USN vessels and squadrons (aircraft), you may end up with a figure closer
to the 186,000 points rather than the 4200 level.
Okay, maybe mass is not really the right item to be basing this on. I
'd
actually look at this porblem a little differently--in that FT ships are
not direct analogs of current ships. In other words, I wouldn't go by tonnage
but by crew size.
If you look at the crew figures for vessels, I think you'd end up with some
very different numbers. For instance, when I was trying to determine an
appropriate force level for the Far Stars Union, I didn't equate a carrier to
a carrier. Rather, I looked at the crew of a FT carrier and matched that up
with whatever current vessel that would be close to. Since the FSU that
I was imagining has a population in the 20-30 million range, I wanted to
see if my force levels were reasonable.
Well, since the crew of an FT Destroyer is about 30, these correspond to
modern day patrol boats (PHG-1 or similar). A FT carrier's crew is
about 180 and corresponds to a large modern destroyer.
I suspect that if you ran a comparison of $ based upon crew, the figures might
be closer to what you are looking for (but I certainly am not going to
do it). :-)
Have fun!
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
Rob H wrote
> How many carriers does the USN have now? Better yet, how many
I was noticing that. A supercarrier (Jeanne d'Arc) would be approximately the
equal of our current carriers but Jeanne d'Arc masses something like 250kt
whereas current CVA masses 90kt. One the other hand a Jeanne d'Arc has a crew
of about 260 officers and crew (plus fighter wing and marines) whereas a
modern carrier crew is something in the neighborhood of 5000 (I don't recall
if that includes air wing or not).
Therefore we see the total mass and the price per ton increasing, but the crew
requirements decreasing. Presumably this is because crew salaries are
expensive and it's cheaper to automate than add another crewman. This would
imply: a) a relatively low unemployment rate, which means the world isn't all
that overpopulated; or b) the characteristics (either physical requirements or
education) for a naval crewman are difficult to find and tend to make him
valuable in other fields; c) in a tight labor market, military forces will
tend to be small, well equipped and professional.
Lazerlight said:
> One the other hand a Jeanne d'Arc
I was part of the pre-commissioning crew of
the USS Eisenhower, CVN 69, so I was told a little more than usual about the
ship. Peace time crew is 3500 ship's company and 1500 for the
air wing. In war time we can carry 6000+ men. Air wing is about 100
planes, all of which can be launched in about 5 minutes off the 4 catapults.
When at "battle stations", half of the ship's crew is in damage control
parties. DC is really big in the USN. It considered one of the primary weapon
systems of a ship. At least in the late 1970's
and early 80's, Dutch ships carried crews about 1/3 the number of US
ships. The reason for this was that their ships were more automative and
damage control was not a concern of theirs. I guess they thought one missile
was all that was needed to disable a ship.
[snip]
> Okay, maybe mass is not really the right item to be basing this
Probably more a function of lifesupport than salary. Lots of supernumary crew
need to be kept alive. The crews are small because humans are used only where
their flexibility is desirable; if a simple job can be done by a robotic drone
that doesn't eat, breathe or cr*p, then so much the better. The human crew are
still there to make decisions, and to handle things when the unexpected
happens and it all turns to poo (and, of course, because this is SF just like
in the movies, and totally automated unmanned ships
are boring IMHO - YMMV....).
This would imply:
> a) a relatively low unemployment rate, which means the world
I see most space naval crew as being quite highly (ie: expensively) trained.
Even Able Spacehand Funk probably stayed awake through a few lectures....
> I was noticing that. A supercarrier (Jeanne d'Arc) would be
Well.. FB1 says Mass 250 = 25,000 t not 250,000.
The FB1 masses make the ships very much the same size as ships around the turn
of the 19th century. Have a squizz at Jane's Fish & Chips of 1905, and you'll
see Ships of the Line are usually about 12,500 tonnes, Armoured Cruisers about
10,000, Protected Cruisers from 6-8,000, Scout Cruisers 4,000, and
torpedo boats/destroyers
anything from 100 tonnes up.
Of course in 1905, Massive Dreadnaughts of up to 25,000 tonnes were under
construction
> Well.. FB1 says Mass 250 = 25,000 t not 250,000.
Okay, our errors of magnitude cancel out. :-}
> The FB1 masses make the ships very much the same size as ships
Snippage.
I've often thought that 1900-1915 was the feel Jon was aiming
for.
> Or Cr1.75 per dollar.
Suspiciously close to one British Pound ;-)