Shinano as BB-XCV

[lancer21]

By that i mean a conversion like they've done to Ise and Hyuga. Let's assume for a moment that the Ises are not converted that way (they were useless anyway as hybrids), but the resources are diverted toward Shinano. Would it take less time to finish Shinano in a BB-XCV configuration rather than a full CV as in OTL? I'm curious whether it could have been ready in time for Leyte.

And the reason for a BB-XCV and not a fully fledged BB is becuse there weren't enough 18 inch guns available, as i understand there were 2 test guns plus 7 new ones (some partially finished) apart from those on Yamato and Musashi, and two partially finished turntables. So focusing on finishing Shinano with 2 triple turrets and six guns plus catapults and floatplanes at the back could possibly get her ready before the OTL CV conversion? Could they launch her much earlier (like sometime in 1943) if they don't convert her to a full CV and just continue with the BB hull building timetable? Then after launch they fit turrets, superstructure and flight deck aft.

And while at this concept, how about same for Ibuki, finishing like a sister ship to Mogami (in her post Midway configuration) with 6 guns at the front and 11 floatplanes at the back. I have read than when they decide to convert Ibuki to CV they actually had to dismantle stuff first (i'm not sure if the same was true for Shinano, but it stood on the slip for an inordinate amount of time) like superstructure and half the machinery.

 

[EwenS]

Bottom line is that every navy that looked at the hybrid Warship between WW1 and 1945 (and even since) ended up rejecting the concept, except the Japanese as an emergency measure. That included Britain and the USA. “Neither fish nor fowl” according to someone in the USN. Too many compromises in each role. The essentials for a carrier (large quantities of explosives and fuel for aircraft) make a Battleship vulnerable in a toe to toe gunfight. For carrier operations the tonnage allocated to the big guns and their armour is wasted.

Turning to the individual Japanese ships, you need to separate Mogami from Ise & Hyuga. Japanese doctrine called for reconnaissance to be carried out by floatplanes. This ultimately led to the cruisers Tone & Chikuma (and the smaller Oyodo to support the sub flotillas). But the various reconnaissance failures in 1942 during Operation C & at Midway, meant they felt they needed more such ships. The damaged Mogami, with one turret wrecked anyway, provided that opportunity, which they followed through.

In the aftermath of Midway the IJN looked at every way possible to renew and expand its carrier fleet. A programme of new carriers was planned based on modified Hiryu and Taiho designs. The earliest conversion candidates candidates were the seaplane / midget sub carriers Chitose & Chiyoda and the incomplete hulls of Shinano & Ibuki.

But they also considered converting ALL the older Battleships and battlecruisers to full carriers. But events intervened and the big gun brigade still had a say. The Nagatos with their 16” guns were too valuable as Battleships, as were the Kongos as fast carrier escorts. And resources weren’t available to convert all the rest.

Ultimately conversion of the Ises was agreed, possibly because of limitations in their main armament, and because they were slightly faster. And because Hyuga had already lost a turret to an internal explosion. And the full carrier conversion slowly got cut back from keeping no turrets, to the forward pair to the eventual 4. But the object was to get them back in service in as short a time as possible.

But the initial airgroup considered for this pair did not consist of seaplanes. They were intended to take 22 Yokosuka D4Y “Judy” dive bombers, which would be catapulted off but would land back on other carriers in the fleet or to land bases. Later the air group was adjusted to 12 Judy & 10 Aichi E16A “Paul” floatplanes. Ultimately they never carried aircraft operationally.
See Warship 2009.

Ibuki was one of two ships planned. She was saved by virtue of being further advanced than her sister and construction continued to clear the slip while the IJN discussed how to complete her, as a cruiser or a full carrier. Work on the carrier conversion began in Nov 1943 and continued until March 1945.
See Warship 2017

Given how early in the build phase the decision was taken to convert Ibuki & Shinano to carriers, I don’t believe their construction could have been speeded up by completing them as hybrids. And more big guns was not what the IJN needed. They needed carriers for the Pacific war.

 

[lancer21]

Thanks for your informative take on this.

My angle for looking at this was since OTL Shinano and Ibuki were a complete waste of resources since they have contributed nothing to their war effort despite clogging a huge slipway and a smaller one (and Shinano was sunk in it's first sortie, must have been terribly disheartening, 62,000 tons and four years of superhuman efforts gone to waste), would there have been a way to finish them earlier. They would have probably still be sunk by the overwhelming US air or sea power either at Leyte or later, but 2 extra combatants in the water is better than none. Who knows what chain of events they might trigger in places like Leyte (especially Shinano) . At least they could have fired their guns in anger before going down.

With the benefit of af a healthy dollop of hindsight, i still think converting the Ises was a waste, probably best to redirect their efforts towards Shinano and Ibuki in whatever form.

And from a resource point of view, perhaps would have been better to just launch Shinano's hull as is (this was one of the options discussed) to free the slipway sometime in late 1942, and use the slipway for something more productive, either conversions, or even building another 17,500 ton Unryu which granted gets us to the same problem, it will be finished too late, autumn 1944 at the earliest. But at least they would have saved severals tens of thousands of tons in steel.

 

[EwenS]

You might be interested in this

Imperial Flattops

 

[lancer21]

Thanks for that, i am familiar with CF though it seems they added some additional info on Shinano since i last read the TROM.
I always though it was some kind of mistake, but if they really could build two Unryus at a time, that drydock could have spat out FOUR Unryus in WW2 instead of Shinano, with possibly another two building but probably not finished. That's another ATL in itself.

 

[EwenS]

Thanks for that, i am familiar with CF though it seems they added some additional info on Shinano since i last read the TROM.
I always though it was some kind of mistake, but if they really could build two Unryus at a time, that drydock could have spat out FOUR Unryus in WW2 instead of Shinano, with possibly another two building but probably not finished. That's another ATL in itself.

Maybe 4 launched in WW2 (1 year or so in DD) but only 2 completed in second half of 1944 (build time 22-24 months plus time to clear the dock in the first place) at best.

There is an interestiing parallel in the USA, that suggests it might not get you both ships at the same time. Philadelphia NY built two Baltimore class cruisers in the same dry dock originally built to build a Montana class battleship. Los Angeles & Chicago (CA135 & 136) laid down together 28 July 1943, both launched (floated out) 20 Aug 1944. But Chicago completed 10 Jan 1945 while Los Angeles completed six months later on 22 July 1945. They began a repeat of that exercise on 27 Dec 1944 with CA138 & 139 Norfolk & Scranton but the ships were cancelled in Aug 1945 before launch. So it looks like it would depend on the trades available to work on both ships simultaneously at each stage of construction.

https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/135/0413564.jpg

And you still dont have the air groups for them. So they remain useless.

 

[lancer21]

Interesting info. My exercise was assuming they start laying 2 Unryus from May 1940 instead of Shinano, they should be launched about middle 1941 and completed second half 1942 to early 1943 going by the example you gave.

Then the second pair is laid down about autumn 1941, launched end 1942 or so and completed early/mid 1944.

The third pair is then started about spring 1943 and launched about mid-1944 but too late to complete them.

As to the planes, i guess they could have earmarked planes and pilots destined for land-based groups to fill up these extra CVs.

Anyway, this is a very interesting ATL exercise since there are many ATLs in which the japanese are building more CVs. Is there info whether the drydocks where Yamato and Musashi were build could have supported such double Unryu construction? The table such as below (if accurate) seems to show it wasn't possible, though perhaps judging by the US example, 2 heavy cruisers at a time could have been built.

Japanese capital ship construction

This thread is something the wiking might post, but instead of about Germany it's about the Japanese capital ship building, to be more precise the organization of it or more accurately the lack of organization. In particular the panic that gripped the Japanese command after Midway which meant a...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[EwenS]

But you need to remember that slips/dry dock availability is only part of the equation. Is steel production enough? More importantly machinery, armour and armament capacity of the industry to create all the ships you want.

 

[lancer21]

Steel shouldn't be an issue, four Unryus is about as much steel as Shinano (and in this ATL scenario, probably they don't build No 111 as well, i have a Taiho instead, still 30,000 tons of steel are saved). Machinery could indeed be a bottleneck though. In OTL they resorted to using DD machinery for some Unryus, that might happen here too.

AA guns, for the purpose of bean counting, can probably be scrounged from here and there (like the CVEs, postponing up-gunning of less important ships, or land bases etc.) all else being equal.

 

[EwenS]

Interesting info. My exercise was assuming they start laying 2 Unryus from May 1940 instead of Shinano, they should be launched about middle 1941 and completed second half 1942 to early 1943 going by the example you gave.

Then the second pair is laid down about autumn 1941, launched end 1942 or so and completed early/mid 1944.

The third pair is then started about spring 1943 and launched about mid-1944 but too late to complete them.

As to the planes, i guess they could have earmarked planes and pilots destined for land-based groups to fill up these extra CVs.

Anyway, this is a very interesting ATL exercise since there are many ATLs in which the japanese are building more CVs. Is there info whether the drydocks where Yamato and Musashi were build could have supported such double Unryu construction? The table such as below (if accurate) seems to show it wasn't possible, though perhaps judging by the US example, 2 heavy cruisers at a time could have been built.

Japanese capital ship construction

This thread is something the wiking might post, but instead of about Germany it's about the Japanese capital ship building, to be more precise the organization of it or more accurately the lack of organization. In particular the panic that gripped the Japanese command after Midway which meant a...

www.alternatehistory.com

Several problems with your ATL Ships aren’t just built in a vacuum. They emerge from the political and military events of their era. Your ATL means changing a lot of history in that era.

The Battleship was still king of the fleet until 1942 for all major nations. Britain, USA, Germany, France & Italy all had plans for more and better BB until the outbreak of war upsets their plans. For the Japanese that means taking on and defeating the Battleships of the US fleet in a decisive fleet action in the western Pacific. The Yamato class are at the core of that strategy.

In May 1940 no Battleship had yet been sunk by an aircraft. The first time that occurs is at Taranto in Nov 1940. And no Battleship was sunk on the open sea by an aircraft until Dec 1941 when the PoW and Repulse were sunk by the Japanese. There is no reason for the Japanese to take a different route to the rest of the world in your time period. That would involve taking a huge risk that no other nation was prepared to do.

In May 1940, other than some exercises by the RN in the early 1930s, multiple carrier groups are still a thing of the future. The Japanese didn’t form the Kido Butai until April 1941. It was 1942 before the US began to do so. The future power of the carrier was not recognised in your timeframe.

In 1936 the Japanese knew that in the event of war they couldn’t outbuild the USA. Hence the shadow carrier programme that would give them extra hulls in in a hurry in the event of war. If they start building more carriers in 1940 they risk an arms race that they know they cannot possibly win.

The 2 Yorktown class are already in service along with Wasp, with Hornet in build. US domestic law (Second Vinson Trammell Act of 1938) would have allowed a second Hornet to be immediately laid down if needed. June 1940 sees the US Congress agree massive increases in naval tonnage & spending including 7 Battleships and 18 carriers.

The Essex are being designed but the US is slow to lay them down. Do you really believe that the US will not react to a Japanese threat and speed up carrier production, even if it were to mean more Yorktowns? Hornet was built in 2 years, over a year faster than her two sisters and the original scheduled build time for an Essex. That was the same kind of acceleration that the Japanese achieved in moving from a peacetime build of Hiryu to a wartime build of Unryu.

By 1939 the Japanese had concluded that the Hiryu type carrier (on which the Unryu class were based) was not adequate for their purposes. So they had moved on to build the Shokaku class and were beginning the design of the next class, the Taiho. I’ll come back to the Unryu development.

And you not only need to build the ships, you need to build the aircraft, which means significantly expanding the production capabilities of the aircraft industry. And you need to find and train many more pilots, maintenance technicians etc. That is something that the Japanese struggled with historically due to low levels of education and high standards leading to high washout rates.

Contrary to popular opinion, in May 1940 the Japanese were not set on war with the USA, Britain and the Dutch. They don’t themselves decide on that route until August 1941 when the US oil embargo kicks in. Until then they want to avoid antagonising the USA too much.

The need for the Unryu design emerges in Aug 1941 I.e after they see war as inevitable. It was an emergency design in the face of a looming crisis that had only just emerging. Also in that programme are the two Ibuki class cruisers.

Rapid Naval Armaments Supplement Programme - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So in your alternate timeline you are not just advancing construction of a few warships, you are changing the entirety of history in the period. It is not an ATL. It is pure fantasy and should be recognised as such.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth I read in the US Strategic Bombing Survey that Japan's steel production was less than it's capacity from 1937. The stumbling block was that they couldn't import enough high metal content iron ore. Before World War II they didn't have the foreign currency to pay for it or the merchant shipping to transport it. During the Pacific War Japan didn't need foreign currency to pay for it, but the USN sank the ore carriers. If I remember correctly steel production in 1944 was half the available capacity.

Find a way to avoid the iron ore shortage and you'll have all the steel you want and then some.

Edit:
I remembered that I did this before I discovered Microsoft Paint.
It Includes Korea and Manchuria

​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A side question. Does anyone know what No. 111 was to have been called? Or if they don't can suggest one that would have been suitable. Japanese battleships were usually named after provinces.

 

[EwenS]

Japan's steel industry was heavily reliant on scap steel pre-war. Some 74% of it came from the USA so they were hit badly by the US embargo in 1940 or 1941. ISTR reading somewhere that in the mid-1930s they were seeking so much it was pushing world prices up considerably.

Edit:- Such was the shortage of steel for rails, that they were pulling up track in Thailand to relay it as part of the Burma Railway duing WW2.

 

[EwenS]

A side question. Does anyone know what No. 111 was to have been called? Or if they don't can suggest one that would have been suitable. Japanese battleships were usually named after provinces.

I've never seen any source that gives a name for No. 111 and so far as I'm aware the Japanese never allocated one.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Interesting info. My exercise was assuming they start laying 2 Unryus from May 1940 instead of Shinano, they should be launched about middle 1941 and completed second half 1942 to early 1943 going by the example you gave.

Then the second pair is laid down about autumn 1941, launched end 1942 or so and completed early/mid 1944.

The third pair is then started about spring 1943 and launched about mid-1944 but too late to complete them.

As to the planes, i guess they could have earmarked planes and pilots destined for land-based groups to fill up these extra CVs.

Anyway, this is a very interesting ATL exercise since there are many ATLs in which the japanese are building more CVs. Is there info whether the drydocks where Yamato and Musashi were build could have supported such double Unryu construction? The table such as below (if accurate) seems to show it wasn't possible, though perhaps judging by the US example, 2 heavy cruisers at a time could have been built.

Japanese capital ship construction

This thread is something the wiking might post, but instead of about Germany it's about the Japanese capital ship building, to be more precise the organization of it or more accurately the lack of organization. In particular the panic that gripped the Japanese command after Midway which meant a...

www.alternatehistory.com

The information I have is that:

• No. 110 (Shinano) and No. 111 were suspended in December 1940.
• No. 110 was resumed in June 1942.
• No. 111 was dismantled in March 1943.

Therefore:

• If No. 110 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in February 1943 instead of October 1944
• If No. 111 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in August 1943.

In other words:

• No. 110's slipway would become available a month before No. 111 was dismantled.
• No. 111's slipway would become available a year before No. 110 (Shinano) was launched.

Edit: However, the problem is (assuming Japan has the same quantities of raw materials and labour) what do they suspend instead?

 

[lancer21]

A side question. Does anyone know what No. 111 was to have been called? Or if they don't can suggest one that would have been suitable. Japanese battleships were usually named after provinces.

I've seen the name Kii mentioned for it but not sure if speculation or based on accurate info.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A side question. Does anyone know what No. 111 was to have been called? Or if they don't can suggest one that would have been suitable. Japanese battleships were usually named after provinces.

I've seen the name Kii mentioned for it but not sure if speculation or based on accurate info.

I think Tsushima would have been a good name. However, according to Wikipedia the Province of Tsushima was abolished in 1872. Fuji isn't a province but there had already been a battleship of that name which was sunk in the Russo-Japanese War.

 

[EwenS]

Interesting info. My exercise was assuming they start laying 2 Unryus from May 1940 instead of Shinano, they should be launched about middle 1941 and completed second half 1942 to early 1943 going by the example you gave.

Then the second pair is laid down about autumn 1941, launched end 1942 or so and completed early/mid 1944.

The third pair is then started about spring 1943 and launched about mid-1944 but too late to complete them.

As to the planes, i guess they could have earmarked planes and pilots destined for land-based groups to fill up these extra CVs.

Anyway, this is a very interesting ATL exercise since there are many ATLs in which the japanese are building more CVs. Is there info whether the drydocks where Yamato and Musashi were build could have supported such double Unryu construction? The table such as below (if accurate) seems to show it wasn't possible, though perhaps judging by the US example, 2 heavy cruisers at a time could have been built.

Japanese capital ship construction

This thread is something the wiking might post, but instead of about Germany it's about the Japanese capital ship building, to be more precise the organization of it or more accurately the lack of organization. In particular the panic that gripped the Japanese command after Midway which meant a...

www.alternatehistory.com

The information I have is that:

• No. 110 (Shinano) and No. 111 were suspended in December 1940.
• No. 110 was resumed in June 1942.
• No. 111 was dismantled in March 1943.

Therefore:

• If No. 110 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in February 1943 instead of October 1944
• If No. 111 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in October 1943.

In other words No. 110's slipway would become available a month before No. 111 was dismantled and No. 111's slipway would become available a year before No. 110 (Shinano) was launched.

You sure you don't mean suspended in Dec 1941 not 1940?

The original build schedule for No.110 / Shinano when laid down as a battleship in May 1940 is given as:-

Laid down 4 May 1940
Launch - Oct 1943
Receive 18" guns - April 1944
Commission - March 1945

Work on her was "temporarily slowed, if not suspended,..." in Aug 1941. Work was then halted in Nov 1941. By June 1942 she was some 70% complete.

Imperial Flattops

According to my sources No. 111 was laid down on 7 Nov 1940 and work stopped in March 1942. The contrract was then cancelled in Sept 1942 and the hull broken up.
"Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945"

Wiki says No.111 was 30% complete. If cancelled in Dec 1940 there would have been very little to break up. But in 1942 it would be a different story.

 

[lancer21]

A side question. Does anyone know what No. 111 was to have been called? Or if they don't can suggest one that would have been suitable. Japanese battleships were usually named after provinces.

I've seen the name Kii mentioned for it but not sure if speculation or based on accurate info.

I think Tsushima would have been a good name. However, according to Wikipedia the Province of Tsushima was abolished in 1872. Fuji isn't a province but there had already been a battleship of that name which was sunk in the Russo-Japanese War.

I also came over the name Shikishima, which seems to be quite fitting for another Yamato as it might have a powerful meaning in japanese culture (there was a BB Shikishima, one of the kamikaze units was named the same etc.). So either that or just re-use Kii and/or Owari of cancelled 1922 ships.

 

[lancer21]

Interesting info. My exercise was assuming they start laying 2 Unryus from May 1940 instead of Shinano, they should be launched about middle 1941 and completed second half 1942 to early 1943 going by the example you gave.

Then the second pair is laid down about autumn 1941, launched end 1942 or so and completed early/mid 1944.

The third pair is then started about spring 1943 and launched about mid-1944 but too late to complete them.

As to the planes, i guess they could have earmarked planes and pilots destined for land-based groups to fill up these extra CVs.

Anyway, this is a very interesting ATL exercise since there are many ATLs in which the japanese are building more CVs. Is there info whether the drydocks where Yamato and Musashi were build could have supported such double Unryu construction? The table such as below (if accurate) seems to show it wasn't possible, though perhaps judging by the US example, 2 heavy cruisers at a time could have been built.

Japanese capital ship construction

This thread is something the wiking might post, but instead of about Germany it's about the Japanese capital ship building, to be more precise the organization of it or more accurately the lack of organization. In particular the panic that gripped the Japanese command after Midway which meant a...

www.alternatehistory.com

The information I have is that:

• No. 110 (Shinano) and No. 111 were suspended in December 1940.
• No. 110 was resumed in June 1942.
• No. 111 was dismantled in March 1943.

Therefore:

• If No. 110 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in February 1943 instead of October 1944
• If No. 111 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in October 1943.

In other words No. 110's slipway would become available a month before No. 111 was dismantled and No. 111's slipway would become available a year before No. 110 (Shinano) was launched.

You sure you don't mean suspended in Dec 1941 not 1940?

The original build schedule for No.110 / Shinano when laid down as a battleship in May 1940 is given as:-

Laid down 4 May 1940
Launch - Oct 1943
Receive 18" guns - April 1944
Commission - March 1945

Work on her was "temporarily slowed, if not suspended,..." in Aug 1941. Work was then halted in Nov 1941. By June 1942 she was some 70% complete.

Imperial Flattops

According to my sources No. 111 was laid down on 7 Nov 1940 and work stopped in March 1942. The contrract was then cancelled in Sept 1942 and the hull broken up.
"Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945"

Wiki says No.111 was 30% complete. If cancelled in Dec 1940 there would have been very little to break up. But in 1942 it would be a different story.

I think that info might come from one of the Japanese Monographs, yes it's much more likely work was suspended on both in 1941 (i kinda doubt they would have continued work on the far less advanced 111 while stopping work on Shinano in 1941)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Interesting info. My exercise was assuming they start laying 2 Unryus from May 1940 instead of Shinano, they should be launched about middle 1941 and completed second half 1942 to early 1943 going by the example you gave.

Then the second pair is laid down about autumn 1941, launched end 1942 or so and completed early/mid 1944.

The third pair is then started about spring 1943 and launched about mid-1944 but too late to complete them.

As to the planes, i guess they could have earmarked planes and pilots destined for land-based groups to fill up these extra CVs.

Anyway, this is a very interesting ATL exercise since there are many ATLs in which the japanese are building more CVs. Is there info whether the drydocks where Yamato and Musashi were build could have supported such double Unryu construction? The table such as below (if accurate) seems to show it wasn't possible, though perhaps judging by the US example, 2 heavy cruisers at a time could have been built.

Japanese capital ship construction

This thread is something the wiking might post, but instead of about Germany it's about the Japanese capital ship building, to be more precise the organization of it or more accurately the lack of organization. In particular the panic that gripped the Japanese command after Midway which meant a...

www.alternatehistory.com

The information I have is that:

• No. 110 (Shinano) and No. 111 were suspended in December 1940.
• No. 110 was resumed in June 1942.
• No. 111 was dismantled in March 1943.

Therefore:

• If No. 110 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in February 1943 instead of October 1944
• If No. 111 hadn't been suspended she might have been launched in October 1943.

In other words No. 110's slipway would become available a month before No. 111 was dismantled and No. 111's slipway would become available a year before No. 110 (Shinano) was launched.

You sure you don't mean suspended in Dec 1941 not 1940?

Absolutely not.

Source: Page 26 of JM-169 - Outline of Naval Armament and Preparations for War - Part 4



So if what I wrote was wrong, it's the source not me. If it is right what else do they suspend for 18 months if they don't suspend construction of No. 110 & No. 111?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Japan's steel industry was heavily reliant on scap steel pre-war. Some 74% of it came from the USA so they were hit badly by the US embargo in 1940 or 1941. ISTR reading somewhere that in the mid-1930s they were seeking so much it was pushing world prices up considerably.

Edit:- Such was the shortage of steel for rails, that they were pulling up track in Thailand to relay it as part of the Burma Railway duing WW2.

For what it's worth I also knew about the reliance on imported scrap steel from the USA and the effects of the embargo.

 

[Hood]

I've seen a reference that two Unryus on order from Yokosuka (5002 and 5005) were cancelled during 1943 and their budget and materials reallocated to the Shinano conversion. But that was probably more a case of the materials not being available for the Unryus rather than a redirection of effort and of course Dock No 6 was occupied by the Shinano.

The Japanese wiki page on the Yokosuka yard gives No 6 drydock dimensions of 365.8 x 67.5m. Shinano was 265.8 x 36.3m and Unryu was 227.35 x 22m. Could you get two Unryus in side-by-side? Well it leaves you with 23.5m spare, or three equal 7.8m gaps (wall-Hull 1/ Hull 1-Hull 2/ Hull 2-wall). Feels tight to me but perhaps not impossible, there would be enough length in the dock to stagger both ships longitudinally so the area of greatest beam wouldn't clash.

There was a discussion on Japanese shipyard capacities here.