Return Of The Frigate

With the proven differences in combat capability between an RMN CA and an SLN SD it seems to me to make sense that at least in the short term an RMN frigate built with the most advanced RMN technology would be able to take on an SLN BS and have a very good chance of surviving plus they would be easily built and manned in large numbers and in a "wolf pack" could take down multiple SLN SDs'

We had a very long and painful argument on the board some time back about frigates. David's comments can be found here:

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/289/1
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/322/1

Duckk wrote:We had a very long and painful argument on the board some time back about frigates. David's comments can be found here:

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/289/1
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/322/1

And quite a spitited discussion it was indeed. But basically it amounted to- LACS or full up destroyers are far more cost and combat effective. A frigate by nature is a compromise- almost impossible to get everything you NEED and want on a hull that small. For anyone- even the RMN.

markm57 wrote:

Duckk wrote:We had a very long and painful argument on the board some time back about frigates. David's comments can be found here:

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/289/1
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/322/1

And quite a spitited discussion it was indeed. But basically it amounted to- LACS or full up destroyers are far more cost and combat effective. A frigate by nature is a compromise- almost impossible to get everything you NEED and want on a hull that small. For anyone- even the RMN.

True; the RTN (previously the Anti-Slavery League's) frigates were due to (1) limited funds (2) limited crews and (3)the mission requirements (capture unarmed slaver ships and raid unarmed bases).

But Torch is working hard to acquire better and larger ships as soon as they can for the reasons stated by the MWW and others.

Still...it is such a proud name, and one with so long a history, that it does seem a shame that there is no room for it in the Honorverse....

Duckk wrote:We had a very long and painful argument on the board some time back about frigates. David's comments can be found here:

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/289/1
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/322/1

markm57 wrote:
And quite a spitited discussion it was indeed. But basically it amounted to- LACS or full up destroyers are far more cost and combat effective. A frigate by nature is a compromise- almost impossible to get everything you NEED and want on a hull that small. For anyone- even the RMN.

Hutch wrote:
True; the RTN (previously the Anti-Slavery League's) frigates were due to (1) limited funds (2) limited crews and (3)the mission requirements (capture unarmed slaver ships and raid unarmed bases).

But Torch is working hard to acquire better and larger ships as soon as they can for the reasons stated by the MWW and others.

Still...it is such a proud name, and one with so long a history, that it does seem a shame that there is no room for it in the Honorverse....

And with the Rolands being a tansitional phase of the newest bottom end war ship being something of a combo of the DD and CL, name the new class a frigate to keep the name in use (and confusion to your enemies )

Welcome to the forums Mirta. First (virtual) drinks on us long timers.



The biggest problem with frigates is that they sit in the wrong point of pretty much every efficiency curve that is used to justify ships. approximately the same fiepower as a LAC, but bigger and more expensive due to the hyperdrive and extra crew needed, while useless against a slgihtly bigger destroyer, as the destroyers engines are a smaller percentage of the ship again, so can mount more combat systems. So more crew, more expensive, less effective. Torch and other small systems use them because thats about all they an afford and crew. But in 5 to 10 years in the honorverse, expect torch to have moved to destroyers and eventually light cruisers, as they are just so much better performing combat ships.

Mirta Layl wrote:With the proven differences in combat capability between an RMN CA and an SLN SD it seems to me to make sense that at least in the short term an RMN frigate built with the most advanced RMN technology would be able to take on an SLN BS and have a very good chance of surviving plus they would be easily built and manned in large numbers and in a "wolf pack" could take down multiple SLN SDs'

This sounds very typical of today's navies. Eventually the new Rolands will reach a size that while they are still called Destroyers, they in fact will be instead a small light cruiser.

Yep ... function ... not necessary size nor tonnage.

Then eventually the need will re establish itself for a smaller, cheaper, more numerous class of small warship. Thus the eventual new Frigate class about the size of most DDs.

Or perhaps smaller. Technology will allow downsizing.

But not right away. After all the major shooting stops, if that is possible. Eventually the Grand Alliance (GA) will recognize the need for sheer numbers of small cheap modern ships.

Right now the need is for larger ships. This will end.

The GA will not simply have the hull numbers to do all the things they will need to do. They know this. First things first. First win the war. Then police the space lanes.

Happens every time. HB of CJ (old coot) Lowly Cm.

HB of CJ wrote:This sounds very typical of today's navies. Eventually the new Rolands will reach a size that while they are still called Destroyers, they in fact will be instead a small light cruiser.

Yep ... function ... not necessary size nor tonnage.

Then eventually the need will re establish itself for a smaller, cheaper, more numerous class of small warship. Thus the eventual new Frigate class about the size of most DDs.

Or perhaps smaller. Technology will allow downsizing.

But not right away. After all the major shooting stops, if that is possible. Eventually the Grand Alliance (GA) will recognize the need for sheer numbers of small cheap modern ships.

Right now the need is for larger ships. This will end.

The GA will not simply have the hull numbers to do all the things they will need to do. They know this. First things first. First win the war. Then police the space lanes.

Happens every time. HB of CJ (old coot) Lowly Cm.

The thing is that in modern navies (and apparently in the Honorverse) size is only a loose indicator of either upfront or total lifecycle costs of a ship. Currently systems drive upfront costs and personnel drive lifecycle cost. A small ship crammed full of top quality sensors, computers, comms, etc can cost more upfront than a big simple warship.

Manticore's crew automation might make the non-combat operating costs for a new CA closer to those of a pre-war DD. Now the number of missiles thrown might make filling the magazines after combat more expensive (even with economies of scale making the individual missiles cheaper to produce)

It's upfront cost would be higher, due to the additional, and more complex, systems (plus a bit more for extra hull+armor; but mostly systems)

HB of CJ wrote:This sounds very typical of today's navies. Eventually the new Rolands will reach a size that while they are still called Destroyers, they in fact will be instead a small light cruiser.

Rolands are already bigger than all previous Manty CL classes other than the Kamerling-class system control cruiser, which is a marine assault ship rather than a conventional CL anyway. DW's estimate of 300 kilotons for a fully capable and survivable modern DD would put it at virtually the size of a Star Knight CA

fallsfromtrees wrote:

markm57 wrote:
And quite a spitited discussion it was indeed. But basically it amounted to- LACS or full up destroyers are far more cost and combat effective. A frigate by nature is a compromise- almost impossible to get everything you NEED and want on a hull that small. For anyone- even the RMN.

Hutch wrote:Still...it is such a proud name, and one with so long a history, that it does seem a shame that there is no room for it in the Honorverse....

And with the Rolands being a tansitional phase of the newest bottom end war ship being something of a combo of the DD and CL, name the new class a frigate to keep the name in use (and confusion to your enemies )

I'd dearly love to have the name 'frigate' remain in use or return to it. And functionally, they had been simply the smallest warship built for extended cruises. But historically in the Honorverse, they'd also been warships in a given tonnage range, and some of those are still in service and using the 'frigate' name. So the association currently is still with that dinky tonnage range, and you would just invite unwelcome confusion trying to use 'frigate' for something doing the job of, and in a tonnage range of, recent light/heavy cruisers.

In our wet navies, 'corvette' and 'frigate' got restored to use only after an interim period in which nothing going by those names was still in use, so there was no confusion invited by restoring them for new ship types reminiscent of the old ones. In the Honorverse - in the RMN anyway, and other navies have tended to just follow suit - destroyers, light and heavy cruisers, and battlecruisers have had tonnages creep up gradually over time tracking the needs of a consistent mission definition, while frigates got left behind - the RMN took to building CL's to do the classic frigate job.

The GSN is somewhat independent-minded. If they take the lead for designing the new tonnage-floor long-range patrol warship, it's possibly they may bring back 'frigate' for it. If they're looking at a fresh naval roster, in which you'd still have frigates, destroyers, light and heavy cruisers, and battlecruisers all below the wall, then giving the frigate name to that tonnage-floor unit is entirely proper. (They may, for that matter, have in mind using 'destroyer' for another unit of about the same tonnage, only optimized for shorter range, no Marine component, near-the-wall service.) The GSN, after all, doesn't have the institutional inertia the RMN sometimes suffers from, and is more likely to be willing to define things in terms of a new fleet philosophy than fitting them into a received one that is an awkward fit for emerging realities.

But yeah, I'm at least going to echo the response that that tonnage floor is going to be in the 300-400k ton range rather than returning to 60k or so in the next century. You'd need to miniaturize MDM's a huge amount, at a minimum, and missile defenses hugely as well. If you have to assume that kind of technical revolution, we're so far out on a speculative limb that there are too many unknowns to suppose that the tonnage floor would still drop instead of go up on account of all the things we can't predict.