Hull number discrepancy

Jonathan_S wrote:Unfortunately while RFC has talked of them from time to time, the only frigates we have a full ship listing for are Silsia's 1868 Gryf-class (from the SITS books); but their ships are so crummy it's hard to know if it's representative. But for what it's worth it was a 53,500 ton design; which is at least 15 thousand tons heavier than a courier.

So back in, say, 1750 PD we don't know for sure the tonnage of a new frigate vs destroyer vs CL. I personally think back then that the frigate was closer to DD weight because DDs would have been smaller yet than they were in the 1820s; so in some ways a FF back then probably wasn't far off from a DD with a several fewer weapons mounts, and downsized magazines, to free up space for more fuel, food, and spares.

Theemile wrote:The only Frigate we have hard stats on is the Silesian Gryf class. launched in 1868, it massed 53.5Ktons. The mentioned Silesian DD is the Joachim Cheslav launched in 1867 and massing 95.75 Ktons. The Gryf has 6 broadside missiles, 1 laser, 1 CM, and 2 PDs. Each hammerhead has 1 of each. The DD has an 8 missile broadside, with 1 laser, 2CM, and 3 PD, each chase has 1 of each and 2 PDs. Notably the Gryf has 1/2 the shipkiller mags of the DD, and 45% of the CMs.

tlb wrote:

Theemile wrote:Think of it not as modifying, but growing and adding capability. DD and FFs are in the same mass range, but a FF consort is usually the smaller and cheaper of the 2 designs; if they are the same size with a similiar hull, armaments are removed in favor of consumables storage on Frigates. The CL will always be larger than it's DD consort, have a slightly larger armament AND more consumables storage, as well as a slightly larger crew.

Frigates are that much cheaper and have smaller crews. That and politically Frigates themselves are not imposing to other systems, they are just the symbol of the greater navy. So having 1200 of them swanning around out in the dark was not "expensive" overall and isn't seen as imperialistic as using CLs. A lot of it was perceived perception, the financial limits of a multi-century peace time navy, the limits of policing another's nation's space lanes and deeply ingrained mindsets by generations of naval leadership.

-- snip --

The use of Frigates in the light anti-piracy and "show the flag" roles allowed the warfighters to focus on those combat intense jobs - and when a heavy squadron had to be used - it brought plenty of heavy metal with it.

Okay, that makes sense. A frigate is about the largest that we would expect a pirate to have (but perhaps with less weapons); so at worst the RMN ship is technically equal, but with a better trained crew. And it is much better to have very many adequate ships, than to have fewer superior ships, when countering piracy.

tlb wrote:So if an unarmed dispatch boat is the minimum hyper capable ship, then we take 15 thousand tons to expand the hull to carry weapons and some armor and the other necessities for long range cruising to get a frigate; we are still 40 thousand tons away from a contemporary destroyer. At least in Silesia a frigate was closer to a dispatch boat than a destroyer.

For anti-piracy duty that was generally okay, because the volume of space required swarms of these ships and the average pirate could not stand up to a well drilled frigate.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:

SVW, CHAP 2 wrote:" 'From Admiral Sir Lucien Cortez, Fifth Space Lord, Royal Manticoran Navy, to Captain Dame Honor Harrington, Countess Harrington, KCR, MC, SG, DSO, CGM, Royal Manticoran Navy, Twenty-First Day, Sixth Month, Year Two Hundred and Eighty-Two After Landing. Madam: You are hereby directed and required to proceed aboard Her Majesty's Starship Nike,

SVW:Honor Harrington's Navy wrote:The actual strengths of the two sides in 282 A.L. (1904 PD.) broke down as below:

Jonathan_S wrote:Unfortunately while RFC has talked of them from time to time, the only frigates we have a full ship listing for are Silsia's 1868 Gryf-class (from the SITS books); but their ships are so crummy it's hard to know if it's representative. But for what it's worth it was a 53,500 ton design; which is at least 15 thousand tons heavier than a courier.


So back in, say, 1750 PD we don't know for sure the tonnage of a new frigate vs destroyer vs CL. I personally think back then that the frigate was closer to DD weight because DDs would have been smaller yet than they were in the 1820s; so in some ways a FF back then probably wasn't far off from a DD with a several fewer weapons mounts, and downsized magazines, to free up space for more fuel, food, and spares.

From 1950 to 1975, frigates were a new type, midway between cruiser and destroyer sizes, intended as major task force escorts.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Unfortunately while RFC has talked of them from time to time, the only frigates we have a full ship listing for are Silsia's 1868 Gryf-class (from the SITS books); but their ships are so crummy it's hard to know if it's representative. But for what it's worth it was a 53,500 ton design; which is at least 15 thousand tons heavier than a courier.


So back in, say, 1750 PD we don't know for sure the tonnage of a new frigate vs destroyer vs CL. I personally think back then that the frigate was closer to DD weight because DDs would have been smaller yet than they were in the 1820s; so in some ways a FF back then probably wasn't far off from a DD with a several fewer weapons mounts, and downsized magazines, to free up space for more fuel, food, and spares.

Hmmm... this got me thinking: maybe the FFs aren't even smaller than the DDs. We're talking about the RMN having too few cruisers for the number of frigates, destroyers and battlecruisers it fielded, so are we talking about a cruiser gap?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification#The_%22cruiser_gap%22

Quoting the section about the status before the reclassification:

From 1950 to 1975, frigates were a new type, midway between cruiser and destroyer sizes, intended as major task force escorts.

We know David knows military history well, so he may have introduced a "cruiser gap" in the 1840s RMN intentionally, but never explained to us why.

From our discussion, it doesn't look like the RMN used FFs as task force escorts, but as discussed it could have filled a different niche that did require mass. We know the RMN isn't shy about classifying based on role, not mass, after all.

But as the build up started, the neighbourhood became increasingly belligerent and the laser head threatened the survivability of such ships, it looks like the role for FFs disappeared.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Hmmm... this got me thinking: maybe the FFs aren't even smaller than the DDs. We're talking about the RMN having too few cruisers for the number of frigates, destroyers and battlecruisers it fielded, so are we talking about a cruiser gap?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification#The_%22cruiser_gap%22

Quoting the section about the status before the reclassification:

From 1950 to 1975, frigates were a new type, midway between cruiser and destroyer sizes, intended as major task force escorts.

We know David knows military history well, so he may have introduced a "cruiser gap" in the 1840s RMN intentionally, but never explained to us why.

From our discussion, it doesn't look like the RMN used FFs as task force escorts, but as discussed it could have filled a different niche that did require mass. We know the RMN isn't shy about classifying based on role, not mass, after all.

But as the build up started, the neighbourhood became increasingly belligerent and the laser head threatened the survivability of such ships, it looks like the role for FFs disappeared.

Theemile wrote:
That could be, but the errata in SITS, Jayne's and HoS mentions other CA classes like the Acherner class which the final 3 squadrons were finally retired between 1809-1820. So other CAs existed back then and have been retired before 1900. Yet, Roger Winton's letter at the beginning of HoS in 1844 is in refute to an earlier article concerning the adding of MORE light units for commerce protection and the doubling of the cruiser force, so there may well have been a cruiser gap at this time, as older classes were allowed to retire and no replacements were built.

Light cruisers were seen as interstellar units, intended to operate for long periods of time without outside support, primarily for strategic and tactical scouting missions. Substantially larger than current-generation destroyers, they were also more potent combat units, capable of dealing with the increasing numbers of heavily armed “privateers” operated by various Silesian separatist movements in the Confederacy. Despite this, Manticore never had more than a couple of dozen light cruisers in service prior to King Roger’s naval expansion program. Lacking neighbors with ill intent and with a battle fleet geared primarily towards home system defense rather than power projection, the RMN’s limited wall of battle had little need for strategic scouting, and the tactical scouting role was filled by LACs and destroyers in the home system. Roles had begun to shift within the RMN in the 1820s, however, due to the ever-expanding reach of the Manticoran merchant marine. As conditions worsened in Silesia, missions normally assigned to destroyers began to be filled by the limited number of RMN light cruisers, and tasks normally assigned to frigates began to be filled by destroyers and light cruisers alike. The success of both the merchant marine and the light cruisers assigned to protect it prompted an acceleration of CL building programs, which were already underway when Roger began to increase the size of the battle fleet. The expansion of the battle fleet substantially accelerated the process, and as increasing numbers of cruisers became available, remaining frigates were steadily taken out of service, both to free up manpower for the king’s “New Navy” and to increase the combat power and survivability of individual units.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Hmmm... this got me thinking: maybe the FFs aren't even smaller than the DDs. We're talking about the RMN having too few cruisers for the number of frigates, destroyers and battlecruisers it fielded, so are we talking about a cruiser gap?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification#The_%22cruiser_gap%22

Quoting the section about the status before the reclassification:

From 1950 to 1975, frigates were a new type, midway between cruiser and destroyer sizes, intended as major task force escorts.

The U.S. frigate classification was not used by any other navy; similar vessels were either cruisers or destroyers in foreign service

The most expensive destroyer in the world is the US Navy’s Zumwalt class. The very first model – the DDG 1000 – cost around $4.2bn according to USNI News, $3.8bn for non-recurring engineering costs and an additional $400m for post-delivery and outfitting. The second and third (in production) ships are estimated to be cheaper, at $2.8bn and $2.4bn respectively. This is expensive compared to the Royal Navy’s Daring-class destroyers that are priced at a little over £1bn ($1.36bn).

In contrast, frigate ships are much more cost-efficient. The Royal Navy’s Duke class was priced at around £130m per vessel, while the much anticipated Type 31 frigate was estimated in 2017 to cost around £250m per unit, according to a UK Government fact sheet.

Jonathan_S wrote:

tlb wrote:So if an unarmed dispatch boat is the minimum hyper capable ship, then we take 15 thousand tons to expand the hull to carry weapons and some armor and the other necessities for long range cruising to get a frigate; we are still 40 thousand tons away from a contemporary destroyer. At least in Silesia a frigate was closer to a dispatch boat than a destroyer.

For anti-piracy duty that was generally okay, because the volume of space required swarms of these ships and the average pirate could not stand up to a well drilled frigate.

Note though that the SCN's Joachim Cheslav-class was a very heavy destroyer for the time. (And an overgunned missile boat that sacrificed virtually all energy mounts to squeeze in a missile broadside more numerous than most contemporary CLs! and twice as many as the equally heavy, but presumably far better balanced, IAN Dolch-class design of 5 years later)

The RMN's contemporaneous 1867 design was the 78,000 ton Chanson-class; almost 18,000 tons lighter than the Joachim's 95,750 tons.

Still I grant you that by the mid 1800s destroyers look to be substantially larger than frigates. Not surprising since I believe their era of greater similarity in displacement was at least a century earlier (and in my opinion destroyers, being designed to support fleet combat, would have been subject to stronger growth pressure than the independently deployed frigates would have; so the further back you go the closer in displacement the 2 types seem likely to be)

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:
In speaking of ship sizes and the SITS books (Which I haven't got), were they included in the "Great Resizing" on the CD's? Or do they date from the earlier time frame before things were adjusted?

Rob