Nat Turner frigate specs

does anyone have a proper listing of the Nat Turner class frigate specs?

there was some talk in one of the create a ship threads about using a non hyper version for customs and local anti pirate work but i realised i dind't know the FF specs well enough, so i went back to Cauldron of ghosts (the only book with any appreciably FF screen time and even there it is very little) and about the only info I could find boiled down to "a Shrike lac on steroids but with export EW, and a spinal graser fore and aft"

so if that is taken literally, you are talking about something like 2 BC grasers, 4 SDM and 4Cm and 3 PD, plus bow and stern walls.

if correct that is a nasty little ship that is being sold dirt cheap to Torch. I know they are allies but i'm still stunned that the RMN allowed them to be built let alone sold, even if a winton and a Zilwicki are in control of the nation.

Shrike-B's, which are the basis of the Nat Turner's I think had 4 CM tubes and 6 PDLC's, because they increased the rear-arc.

A Nat Turner is basically a Shrike facing forwards and backwards, so their CM tubes and PDLC's would logically increase or be shifted to still be somewhat useful. That'd bump them to 8 CM tubes and 12 PDLC's, which seems rather.... excessive, and if they had full power grasers they'd be almost SD strength, again excessive with the export limitations.

I figure they have 6 CM tubes, and 8 PDLC's though, split evenly fore and aft, and the Shrike-A BC strength grasers.

Edit: forgot, to account for the revolver LAC SDM missile tubes, which should get bumped to 8 if they got both LAC's worth, and somewhere upto 40 shipkillers. The missiles are important, they're a patrol ships most commonly used weapon, especially against the slave ships that Torch is chasing. I can't picture them reducing the launchers or missile count by much.

Somtaaw wrote:Shrike-B's, which are the basis of the Nat Turner's I think had 4 CM tubes and 6 PDLC's, because they increased the rear-arc.

A Nat Turner is basically a Shrike facing forwards and backwards, so their CM tubes and PDLC's would logically increase or be shifted to still be somewhat useful. That'd bump them to 8 CM tubes and 12 PDLC's, which seems rather.... excessive, and if they had full power grasers they'd be almost SD strength, again excessive with the export limitations.

I figure they have 6 CM tubes, and 8 PDLC's though, split evenly fore and aft, and the Shrike-A BC strength grasers.

Edit: forgot, to account for the revolver LAC SDM missile tubes, which should get bumped to 8 if they got both LAC's worth, and somewhere upto 40 shipkillers. The missiles are important, they're a patrol ships most commonly used weapon, especially against the slave ships that Torch is chasing. I can't picture them reducing the launchers or missile count by much.

I think that RFC disavowed the idea that it was two Shrikes welded together back to back. The closest you can come is to look up the specs for a pre-war destroyer, since the text says that one of those frigates could take on a lot of pre-war destroyers.

It has, for example, a regular fusion reactor rather than the fission pile that a Shrike comes with. Other than that, it probably does have most of the weapons fit of maybe one and a half Shrikes.

Dauntless wrote:does anyone have a proper listing of the Nat Turner class frigate specs?

there was some talk in one of the create a ship threads about using a non hyper version for customs and local anti pirate work but i realised i dind't know the FF specs well enough, so i went back to Cauldron of ghosts (the only book with any appreciably FF screen time and even there it is very little) and about the only info I could find boiled down to "a Shrike lac on steroids but with export EW, and a spinal graser fore and aft"

so if that is taken literally, you are talking about something like 2 BC grasers, 4 SDM and 4Cm and 3 PD, plus bow and stern walls.

if correct that is a nasty little ship that is being sold dirt cheap to Torch. I know they are allies but i'm still stunned that the RMN allowed them to be built let alone sold, even if a winton and a Zilwicki are in control of the nation.

I seem to recall RFC posting a little more detail in one of the innumerable frigate threads, the problem is I'm having trouble coming up with a better search term that "frigate" and there are a bazillion uses of it in his posts over the last 5-6 years.

I did find one from 29-Dec-2011 saying that "You cannot power a frigate with a fission plant" and "even the RTN's "double-Shrike" frigate --- and, God, given the way some people have fastened on that term, how I wish I had never used or allowed Eric to use a thoroughly inaccurate term for it! --- uses a fusion plant" - so that, the alpha nodes (and their impeller rooms), and the hyper generator are going to squeeze its internal volume compared to a pair of Shrikes.

I thought I remembered RFC saying somewhere that Nat Turners use a conventional magazine and launchers (like a Ferret) rather than the revolver-style Shrike launchers. But I'm not finding that at the moment. (I did find his post saying that you'd never combine a revolver with a magazine; a revolver is only an advantage if you're carrying so few missiles you can put them all in the revolver and eliminate the magazine)


Oh, and I finally remembered to go look in Cauldron of Ghosts (warning; this is from the eARC; so content may have shifted during editing) and it has a little more detail

Cauldron of Chosts (eARC) wrote:the Nat Turners were significantly more dangerous than most people might have expected. Effectively, they were hyper-capable versions of the Royal Manticoran Navy's Shrike-class LAC but with about twice the missile capacity and a pair of spinal-mounted grasers, with the second energy weapon bearing aft. Their electronics were a downgraded "export version" of the RMN's (which was hardly surprising, given the fact that they’d been going to be operating in an area where the Republic of Haven's intelligence services had ready access and no one in the galaxy had dreamed Haven and Manticore might end up allies), but the Turners were probably at least as dangerous as the vast majority of the galaxy's destroyers.

Hope that helps.

Dauntless wrote:if correct that is a nasty little ship that is being sold dirt cheap to Torch. I know they are allies but i'm still stunned that the RMN allowed them to be built let alone sold, even if a winton and a Zilwicki are in control of the nation.

It's worse than that. The first few ships were donated to or built-at-cost for the Anti-Slavery League - the legitimate front of that terrorist organisation, the Audobon Ballroom. And it happened during the High Ridge government.

There are no known specs of the John Brown nor the Nat Turner classes. IIRC, Weber later said he regretted describing the Nat Turner the way they were as he did not intend it to be essentially two Shrikes stuck back-to-back with a hyper generator in the middle, though it could loosely be described as such, in the way a broom can be loosely described as a shovel.

I wouldn't be surprised if the grasers turned out to be DD or CA strength, with the original missiles supplied being the same technology used in the late Series 282 LACs... but using Ferret-sized launchers and magazines so they'd be compatible with the RMN.

I figure 2G, 8M, 8CM and 8 PD is roughly what the Nat Turner has total. No idea if they have LAC style launcher arrangements or more conventional broadside launchers. Either way, such an unit would be very dangerous to quite a few older destroyer designs and in small numbers could threaten even lone heavy cruisers.

Remember the Shrike LAC class is less than 5000 tons displacement. The Screwy listings in HOS make no sense.

Smaller ships do not displace more than larger ships.

Nat Turner should be 50,000 to 80,000 ton range. I suppose it could be as little as 35,000 tons but that is Dispatch boat size and I think it would be larger than that. 100,000 ton range is likely too large.

Remember on the outside a 50-80,000 ton range is not much different, numbers look large but really are not.

Twice as large is eight times the displacement. 40% larger displacement is only 11% bigger (longer wider deeper)

The Shrikes are exactly the tonnage we - and David - want them to be.

munroburton wrote:
I figure 2G, 8M, 8CM and 8 PD is roughly what the Nat Turner has total. No idea if they have LAC style launcher arrangements or more conventional broadside launchers. Either way, such an unit would be very dangerous to quite a few older destroyer designs and in small numbers could threaten even lone heavy cruisers.

I would argue that they likely have 4 not 8 missile tubes (DD/CL Capacitor powered SDM), but otherwise largely agree with your likely load out and would be willing to argue that all offensive weapons are mounted in the hammerheads. With the unspecified, but high accel they are capable of everyone who has seen their specs seems to characterize them as a very nasty handfull, even when commanding a cruiser flotilla.

JohnRoth wrote:

Somtaaw wrote:Shrike-B's, which are the basis of the Nat Turner's I think had 4 CM tubes and 6 PDLC's, because they increased the rear-arc.

A Nat Turner is basically a Shrike facing forwards and backwards, so their CM tubes and PDLC's would logically increase or be shifted to still be somewhat useful. That'd bump them to 8 CM tubes and 12 PDLC's, which seems rather.... excessive, and if they had full power grasers they'd be almost SD strength, again excessive with the export limitations.

I figure they have 6 CM tubes, and 8 PDLC's though, split evenly fore and aft, and the Shrike-A BC strength grasers.

Edit: forgot, to account for the revolver LAC SDM missile tubes, which should get bumped to 8 if they got both LAC's worth, and somewhere upto 40 shipkillers. The missiles are important, they're a patrol ships most commonly used weapon, especially against the slave ships that Torch is chasing. I can't picture them reducing the launchers or missile count by much.

I think that RFC disavowed the idea that it was two Shrikes welded together back to back. The closest you can come is to look up the specs for a pre-war destroyer, since the text says that one of those frigates could take on a lot of pre-war destroyers.

It has, for example, a regular fusion reactor rather than the fission pile that a Shrike comes with. Other than that, it probably does have most of the weapons fit of maybe one and a half Shrikes.

oh I understand that it's not literally two Shrikes welded together, sort of concept. Since they have a hyper generator & fusion plant, they must be using most of the extra mass of that "second" Shrike, to shoehorn both in. But the base idea would be similar, you'd have a chase weapon in both fore and aft. You'd get some missiles along your flanks, now whether they're "true broadsides", or LAC style bulges is unknown.

I'm really picturing the Nat Turner's as being essentially an "armed dispatch boat", with all negatives both ships have: small, little to zero armor, few if any crew amenities, relatively low reactor mass requiring frequent topups.

But they probably also have many of the perks too: incredibly fast for their tonnage, EW is probably ridiculously high for displacement, what weapons are mounted are as powerful as can fit.

2 BC grasers, 8 missiles, 8 CM, and 8 PDLC's does sound about right for something that is approximately twice the displacement of a Shrike while fitting hyper generator and a full fusion plant with bunkerage. The only real question is whether they're the LAC missiles bulging out on all four sides of the frigate, or conventional broadsides (with or without the RMN off-bore).

Somtaaw wrote:2 BC grasers, 8 missiles, 8 CM, and 8 PDLC's does sound about right for something that is approximately twice the displacement of a Shrike while fitting hyper generator and a full fusion plant with bunkerage. The only real question is whether they're the LAC missiles bulging out on all four sides of the frigate, or conventional broadsides (with or without the RMN off-bore).

Well, like I said above, I doubt the Nat Turners have BC grade grasers. They are designed for export, not front-line combat use against peer competitors.

Anyone who isn't the RHN or RMN is going to be quite wary of a 60 or 65 kton frigate carrying the same type of grasers used in the Star Knight, for example.

If it has full off-bore capability, it doesn't really matter which configuration the launchers are in. Although if they only have limited off-bore, having conventional broadsides would allow all launchers to bear upon targets in the fore or aft arcs.

LAC style launchers would either all be pointed forward or split half forward half backward. Either creates some unfavourable situations - in the former case, it would be unable to engage with missiles whilst retreating and in the latter case would only be able to bring half of its missiles to bear whilst maneuvering for a graser shot.