Yet another (crazy) idea.

Weird Harold wrote:

Hutch wrote:But for an effort like this, the Havenites might well have left 1-2 CLAC's behind and literaly 'strip-mined" them for parts and, if necessary, swapped out LAC's to give the remaining ships all the Hanger Queens, leaving the ships going to battle at 100% and the poor sods back at base explaining a readiness rate of 40%.....

This side issue started because I disparaged Havenite readiness rates because of textev regarding their deficient maintenance skills. They can cannibalize and re-assign prior to deployment all they want but when it comes time to launch a max effort, there are going to be "red-ball maintenance" calls and mission aborts due to maintenance casualties.

I suspect that the wording "three aviary class CLACs launched nearly six-hundred LACs" is recognition of the fact that there were six-hundred LACs assigned, but something less than 100% were ready and able to launch.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. For an operation like this, they would have stripped out any hanger queens. While a hanger queen might have stayed on board and in the duty roster on a normal op, for this specific operation the mission parameters would have required a 100% readiness status. So any ships that would be considered hanger queens would have been removed and replaced before they left the Haven bases. And in all likelihood, knowing Thiesman, any commanding officer that kept his/her hanger queens would find him/herself replaced quickly.

Lyonheart, aren't you making the unwarranted assumption that every Havenite system runs convoys to every other Havenite system? I would expect that most Havenite systems only send convoys to Haven itself, and maybe two or three other systems. That rather dramatically reduces the number of escorts (and freighters) necessary.

SWM wrote:Lyonheart, aren't you making the unwarranted assumption that every Havenite system runs convoys to every other Havenite system? I would expect that most Havenite systems only send convoys to Haven itself, and maybe two or three other systems. That rather dramatically reduces the number of escorts (and freighters) necessary.

Although I don't believe that there is any textev that Haven runs multi-system convoys, there is plenty of it that Manticore does. If your convoy route runs from Haven to A to B to C to D to E, they there is only one set of convoy escorts required, not 15 as your model requires. Surely even the bureaucrats for either the Legislaturists or the Peeps would have figured this out.

Zakharra wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you here. For an operation like this, they would have stripped out any hanger queens.

I don't think you understand what a "Hanger Queen" is; the USAF definition is "an aircraft in non-flying status for more than 30 consecutive days." That can be any craft that needs a part starting the day after you reorganize your entire fleet.

I also don't think you understand the difficulty in "stripping out and replacing" components of a squadron or wing.

First of all, for such a major operation, where are you going to find replacements -- especially after you pre-deploy to a deserted system to "work up" your fleet?

Second: No commander worth his salt is going to release his most reliable craft in exchange for known maintenance problems. Unless Higher HQ specifies by registry number, he's going to send the most problematic of his craft that isn't currently a "Hanger Queen."

Third: Any sort of permanent assignment is going to required about five feet of paperwork (depth, not length) and an acceptance inspection. An acceptance inspection has been known to turn an incoming craft into a hanger queen.

Fourth: No major military Operation is immune to Murphy's Law; even if Havenite maintenance crews were all Shannon Forracker Clones, there WILL be LACs that refuse to pass their pre-launch checks and abort the mission without even launching -- not because they won't be optimal, but because continuing the launch isn't possible. Think engine failure or flight controls jammed in terms of R/W aircraft.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you here. For an operation like this, they would have stripped out any hanger queens.

I don't think you understand what a "Hanger Queen" is; the USAF definition is "an aircraft in non-flying status for more than 30 consecutive days." That can be any craft that needs a part starting the day after you reorganize your entire fleet.

I also don't think you understand the difficulty in "stripping out and replacing" components of a squadron or wing.

First of all, for such a major operation, where are you going to find replacements -- especially after you pre-deploy to a deserted system to "work up" your fleet?

Second: No commander worth his salt is going to release his most reliable craft in exchange for known maintenance problems. Unless Higher HQ specifies by registry number, he's going to send the most problematic of his craft that isn't currently a "Hanger Queen."

Third: Any sort of permanent assignment is going to required about five feet of paperwork (depth, not length) and an acceptance inspection. An acceptance inspection has been known to turn an incoming craft into a hanger queen.

Fourth: No major military Operation is immune to Murphy's Law; even if Havenite maintenance crews were all Shannon Forracker Clones, there WILL be LACs that refuse to pass their pre-launch checks and abort the mission without even launching -- not because they won't be optimal, but because continuing the launch isn't possible. Think engine failure or flight controls jammed in terms of R/W aircraft.

I am assuming that when the plan for the BoM was planned, that it would have been emphasized that all ships be up to snuff.

1. The ships involved get rid of their known hanger queens before they leave their bases, picking up replacements beforehand. And that the fleet have a supply train suitable of resupplying every need they might have barring major ship reconstruction.

2. No commander would have a choice when given orders, and since that maintenance records can be pulled to look at, they might have complained, but they would have had no choice but to obey orders or face a courts-martial. Orders would specify that the fleet being build gets the absolutely top stuff. When they were found out shorting the fleet and orders, it would be their asses on the line for disobeying orders.

3. This would be acceptable cut it would still run up against the orders coming in and with maintenance records, they could verify if it was worth the time to transfer that vessel to the fleet.

4. Thiesman is smart enough and he has enough competent military commanders who have served under 3 different administrations/governments that they would be able to eliminate Murphy for much of the fleet. Also, while waiting for the time to launch the attack and in flight, the crews of the ships would be going over -every- piece of equipment again and again, checking and rechecking to make sure they are working perfectly (or close enough) so when the order was given, all of those ships would launch and fight. There would be intense pressure for every LAC to perform perfectly and any that failed to make the grade would have their crews, their maintenance people and flight commanders in deep crap and an ass chewing of epic proportions. So if any of those LACs wasn't in space when the time came to launch, I will eat my hat.

I refuse to believe that in all military operations there is always one ship left behind because of equipment failure.

Zakharra wrote: I am assuming that when the plan for the BoM was planned, that it would have been emphasized that all ships be up to snuff.

You can emphasize and order all you want, but Murphy and Machinery will ignore you.

Zakharra wrote: 4. Thiesman is smart enough and he has enough competent military commanders who have served under 3 different administrations/governments that they would be able to eliminate Murphy for much of the fleet.

Yes, Theisman is smart and experienced. That's why he'd never countenance such a disruption in assignments and why he'd know that no plan can be "Murphy Proofed."

He's smart enough and experienced enough to never countenance a plan that required 100% readiness.

Zakharra wrote:Also, while waiting for the time to launch the attack and in flight, the crews of the ships would be going over -every- piece of equipment again and again, checking and rechecking to make sure they are working perfectly (or close enough) so when the order was given, all of those ships would launch and fight.

Most hanger queens result from "phase inspections" where close attention is paid to impending failures and time change components. The closer you look, the more faults you'll find; The only thing your proposal would manage is to use up spares, redline more craft and wear out your maintenance crews.

Zakharra wrote: I refuse to believe that in all military operations there is always one ship left behind because of equipment failure.

There have been one or two operations that went exactly as planned with no equipment failures. The point is that those kind of operations are very rare, and vanishingly rare where maintenance expertise is suspect. (as the US found out regarding draftees, and as Haven has struggled with Dolist educational levels.)

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote: I am assuming that when the plan for the BoM was planned, that it would have been emphasized that all ships be up to snuff.

You can emphasize and order all you want, but Murphy and Machinery will ignore you.

Murphy doesn't always make an appearance or a large appearance, so its entirely likely no LACs were sidelined for faulty parts.

Zakharra wrote: 4. Thiesman is smart enough and he has enough competent military commanders who have served under 3 different administrations/governments that they would be able to eliminate Murphy for much of the fleet.

Yes, Theisman is smart and experienced. That's why he'd never countenance such a disruption in assignments and why he'd know that no plan can be "Murphy Proofed."

He's smart enough and experienced enough to never countenance a plan that required 100% readiness.

Given that those ships were going into battle in the Manticore system, anything less than 100% wouldn't be acceptable. When attacking the enemy's strongest point, 100% readiness had better be your goal or you will be wasting your time (you're implying that there is almost always something that sidelines a ship/plane no matter what) bringing those ships there in the first place.

Zakharra wrote:Also, while waiting for the time to launch the attack and in flight, the crews of the ships would be going over -every- piece of equipment again and again, checking and rechecking to make sure they are working perfectly (or close enough) so when the order was given, all of those ships would launch and fight.

Most hanger queens result from "phase inspections" where close attention is paid to impending failures and time change components. The closer you look, the more faults you'll find; The only thing your proposal would manage is to use up spares, redline more craft and wear out your maintenance crews.

Swap out as many parts for new/near new ones and replace anything with problematic/possible problems. It doesn't seem that hard. Time consuming, yes. I imagine that takes up a lot of time, but it is doable and that's what the time spent going to the rendezvous point and waiting to launch the attack would be for anyways. Maintenance. Unless some commander unloaded a crap ship on them, there is no reason that every LAC would not be capable of flight and fight when the time came.

Zakharra wrote: I refuse to believe that in all military operations there is always one ship left behind because of equipment failure.

There have been one or two operations that went exactly as planned with no equipment failures. The point is that those kind of operations are very rare, and vanishingly rare where maintenance expertise is suspect. (as the US found out regarding draftees, and as Haven has struggled with Dolist educational levels.)

The RHN is no longer the Dolist fleet. It has people who are well trained, dedicated and do you seriously think Thiesman wouldn't have put his best ships and crews, officers and fleet in charge of making the fleet ready on time?

One thing to note, bad luck(aka Murphy) won't always sideline a ship. When LACs were being redeveloped, there was one RMN LAC that had a slight problem with its bow wall, where the wall met the impeller/wedge. There was a small eddy there, but it wasn't enough to sideline the LAC. It went into combat anyways and fought well before being destroyed. You're implying that any fault will sideline a plane/ship. If that's true it is amazing that any of them fly if a single fault can cause it to be pulled from service.

Zakharra wrote:snip
One thing to note, bad luck(aka Murphy) won't always sideline a ship. When LACs were being redeveloped, there was one RMN LAC that had a slight problem with its bow wall, where the wall met the impeller/wedge. There was a small eddy there, but it wasn't enough to sideline the LAC. It went into combat anyways and fought well before being destroyed. You're implying that any fault will sideline a plane/ship. If that's true it is amazing that any of them fly if a single fault can cause it to be pulled from service.

That eddy between the stern wall and wedge was a design flaw caused by the fact that the work was being done off the books by an ad hoc group of crew members. It was deemed acceptable, this the STERN wall that it was providing was better than the complete lack of a STERN wall which was the case before. Use of this as an example of why even ships with a flaw will fly is egregious, as it doesn't show anything of the sort.

Zakharra wrote:When LACs were being redeveloped, there was one RMN LAC that had a slight problem with its bow wall, where the wall met the impeller/wedge. There was a small eddy there, but it wasn't enough to sideline the LAC.

The LAC in question was "cutthroat" and the grav eddy was in the experimental stern wall system. That was a design defect, not a malfunction.

Not all malfunctions result in an abort or even reduced mission effectiveness.

There is a reason that a typical "Frag Order" includes craft designated as spares; and why CLACs carry nearly a squadron's worth of spare LACS.

Even a "Max Effort" schedule includes Spares and allows for maintenance casualties (or combat losses.)

You're ignoring the work-up time in an isolated system and a month or more travel time to Manticore; time after you've "purged" all problem craft and brought in replacements with quirks and foibles your maintenance crews know nothing about, you've still got three months or so for new problems to show up and old time-change items to run over their allotted time.