A Case for the Reorganization of the Imperial Navy

[LCL Fewrfreyut]

There's an item we have yet to touch on, or if we did, I missed it.

Our third ISD, the Eviscerator, is currently sitting and collecting dust.

I think it would be better for the Navy if we brought it out and move the TC office to it. This way all of High Com is on an ISD or station, and we could open up more potential command positions, making even more likelyhood of reaching an ISD command position.

[LC La Forge]

Something tells me three Sector Groups would be far too many, Lieutenant.... Two is pushing the envelope as it is.

[LCL Fewrfreyut]

understandable.

[Calder]

Commander La Forge is correct, in my opinion. Two really is pushing it; three is going way too far.

[Vortagh]

Why does every ISD have to be it's own sector group? Very unrealistic, especially since we only have ONE sector. :P

Why bother with sub- and sub-sub-organisations anyways? We have ONE fleet. In our RP situation, I assume a real organisation would rather be "Fleet" and "System-Defense" (heavily armed, small craft).

[LCL Fewrfreyut]

so bring the Eviscerator out of secotr group 3 and move it into our current operational systems? We could probably use the "firepower"

[Hazledine]

But i don't think that we need 3 ISDs. I think it will be a little bit over the top.. That way we all get a ISD!!! WOOP WOOP. Nah, i think that the two we'd have would be enough for what we want to do.

[Vortagh]

I agree with Haz. My argument was solemly directed towards the general structure of the Fleet.

[LCL Fewrfreyut]

your point has been made, and I agree with it, Haz.

[Calder]

Well that's just it. It's quite ironic, really, in that our real feelings about fleet structure mirror what you would expect "real" post-Endor Imperial forces to believe, or rather, refuse to believe. And that is that we do not have the resources to have a full, traditional fleet.

Sure, it would be great to have a whole flotilla of star destroyers, but it's not possible. One of the purposes of my proposal is to avoid eliminating the Nemesis, but to think we could use this to open a THIRD ISD is, honestly, preposterous. Do you know what we have the manpower for? One FULLY staffed VSD.That's it. So while my proposal gives us substantially more than that, let's not get carried away here.

[LC La Forge]

Furthermore, ISDs should be places of importance, places that officers strive to serve on. For example, Flag offices and the Senior Fleet Officer all service on ISDs. The idea here is to increase the ability for upwards mobility. If we start pepole on the top, at ISDs, there's (again) no where to go. No, I don't think that's a great idea.

Everyone keep your heads on your shoulders, and please, try not to use this possibility for your own selfish gain of rank. Thank you.

[drazhar]

Ok, im wading in here after skimming over a lot of the posts but i have some points

1. I am firmly against Ensigns commanding any individual ships. The frigates were not a success, they bred seperation in the fleet. People barely contributed to their frigate, let alone their System Force. The ISD's and VSD's have a proud history of bringing their squadrons together. People still to this day are Strikerites, or Vigilanties, and are damned proud of it (COME ON VIGILANT!! :) ). This is the attitude we need to nurture again.

2. I am all in favor of a consolodation of sorts. A reduction in the size of squadrons is a good idea. We have to face the facts that people are not as interested in XVT, TIE or even EaW as they used to be. I would be in favor of halving the squadron sizes.

3. Command Level Ranks: Squadron CO's should be able to reach the position of Commander. After that, position on a ship should be the indication of rank superiority. The XO of a ship is higher in rank to the CO of a squadron for example. We have seven ranks for people to climb before they enter High Command area, from EN to CM. there is plenty of room for people to grow

4. Wing Commander. Currently on the Chimaera there is no XO. There is no need for an XO, the work just isnt there. I think we should be allowed to make one of our squadron commanders into a Wing Commander, this person would then act as the XO for the ship, with the position open to review should XO activities dominate the officers time. It also gives squadron CO's a position to work for

5. Platforms and Squads/Squadrons: I love the Bridge Crew idea for EaW. However i think that we need to move back to proper squadrons more for a sense of proper function than anything else. Going from the available tech info, an ISD has 6 Squadrons. We should have 6 Squadrons of 6 people on Each ISD.

6 squadrons of 6 is still more to fill than we have at present. Perhaps VSD's might be the way to go

Lets work on the figures, assuming no XO's for ships
ISD:

1 Ship CO
6 Squadron CO
6 Squadron XO
24 Regular Crew

2 x ISD's = 74 Members

We currently have 38 Active members of the Navy, with 10 possible Cadets.

We can fill a single ISD at present.

I think we need to move to VSD's and a Single System's Force

VSD Ship Layout
1 Ship CO
2 Squadron CO
2 Squadron XO
8 Regular Crew

3 x VSD's = 39 Members Total

1 Ship CO should be a Commodore, this is the Flag officer for the System Group, alternatively, the Commander of the Navy is the flag officer

Currently we have 2 x CL and 1 x CM. Each of these should command a single VSD.

That gives us 6 Squadrons. We have 3 x LC, 1 x LT, 1 x LJ. There are 5 Squadron CO's

We have 5 x SL. There are 5 Squadon XO's

We have 17 regular crew. 3 to 3 squadrons, 4 to 2 squadrons

That gives us 2 Squadrons fully manned, and 3 with a single place remaining for cadets.

We also have a full Squadron to be filled, so plenty of competition for the SL's of the fleet, and the EF's of the fleet

Platforms for the Ships:

1 VSD can be EaW
1 VSD can be XVT/XWA
1 VSD can be XWA/TIE

Any thoughts?

[LC La Forge]

Well, I would increase squadron size, not decrease it. The more squadrons, the more overhead with command personnel, which is what we need to try to avoid doing at the moment. Unless anyone sees benefit for reducing squadron size?

I also disagree with the ranks for squadrons... it might work for something you've setup in your post, but other than that, it has a very EH feel to it, not something I like. The rank->position idea in the GE is one that I enjoy very much, as I feel it preserves the importance of some ranks and positions better. I would hate to lose that.

[drazhar]

I totally agree with teh Ranks for positions ideas, but i think that ranks for some positions, Squadron CO for example, should be opened up more. They currently facilitate up to LC for example

[LCL Fewrfreyut]

so you think that the ranks for squdron leader should stretch up to Commander?

also, your arrangement leaves no room for the Chimaera.