Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Maldorian and 21 guests

Hull number discrepancy

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by tlb   » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:01 am

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:FWIW, a frigate had almost the same crew requirement as a destroyer (pre-war), ~300 or so. So I hope you can put more than 20 people on it in comfort, when you convert it to civilian use. :D iirc, the Tankersley would take about a hundred passengers; it massed 55k tons. About the same as the local-built pirate Wayfarer stomped on in Silesia back in 1908? 1909? Losing the timeline, it was HAE, anyway.

Theemile wrote:The 1 Frigate we have stats on has a crew of ~120. being an only data point, I don't know if it is indicative of the type. We know the crews of the Torch ships are small, but that is by design, and tech advances, and probably is no way indicative of classic Frigates.

DDs and CLs and similiar sizes of crews - buildup era Manty DD crews seem to be larger than Andy, Silly and Peep crews from the era - probably because they took prizes regularly. what could that mean for Manty FF crews?

Looking at the Manty errata - no FF classes survived the purge. None were reclassified a DD because they had a sufficient weapons fit to do so. Either the Author never thought of it (possibly) or EVERY FF was that pathetic that it couldn't be reclassified as a DD in a navy that still carried Nobelese DDs on it's roster.

It is unlikely that the RMS Paul Tankersley is a repurposed frigate; it is a civilian yacht that may owe design elements to a frigate or courier boat, just as a corporate jet owes design elements to military jets. From In Enemy Hands, chapter 1:
Since even a small, unarmed, bare-bones civilian starship cost about seventy million dollars, the idea of purchasing one had seemed extravagant, to say the least. But as Willard had pointed out, she was worth over three and a half billion by now, and if she bought the ship as a corporate asset of her Grayson-headquartered Sky Domes, Ltd., she would owe no licensing fees (in light of her steadholder's status), while the purchase would provide a substantial tax write-off in the Star Kingdom. Not only that, he'd been able to negotiate a very attractive price with the Hauptman Cartel for an only slightly used vessel much larger and more capable than she'd thought possible. And, he'd argued persuasively, her growing financial empire required more and more trips back and forth between Yeltsin's Star and Manticore by her various managers and factors. The flexibility and independence from passenger liner schedules which a privately owned vessel would provide would grow only more useful as time passed.

And so, to her considerable bemusement, she'd returned to Grayson not aboard an RMN or GSN cruiser or destroyer and not accompanied by a single treecat. Instead, she'd returned in state aboard the fifty-k-ton, private registry Star Falcon-class yacht RMS Paul Tankersley accompanied by fourteen treecats...


So the Tankersley was barely used (so almost new?). We know from other discussions that it is sufficiently difficult to remodel a warship; to the extent that it is cheaper to rebuild.

If a frigate did not have a smaller crew than a destroyer, then the operating costs would be about the same and the only advantage would be the lower initial cost.
Last edited by tlb on Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by Theemile   » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:18 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3634
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

tlb wrote:
If a frigate did not have a smaller crew than a destroyer, then the operating costs would be about the same and the only advantage would be the lower initial cost.


Goodness my memory was off...

looking at my charts, Destroyers in 1900 had a crew of ~300, with the exception of the PEEP DDs, which had a crew of ~425.

CLs mostly had a crew of 450-500, with the exception of the old Courageous class , which had a crew of 385 - but that might just have been placed to stay true to text, and the Andy Nachtschatten (Nightshade) class with a crew of 547.

And the only data for Frigates is still the Gryf with 121.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:37 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Theemile wrote:Goodness my memory was off...

looking at my charts, Destroyers in 1900 had a crew of ~300, with the exception of the PEEP DDs, which had a crew of ~425.

CLs mostly had a crew of 450-500, with the exception of the old Courageous class , which had a crew of 385 - but that might just have been placed to stay true to text, and the Andy Nachtschatten (Nightshade) class with a crew of 547.

And the only data for Frigates is still the Gryf with 121.


That's a bit low from a pre-automation warship with a full three-shift crew. They mustn't have any marines embarked, but you do want redundancy aboard a warship in case it goes into battle and there are casualties. We heard from the HMS Tristram crew that they were too few for some tasks, albeit one would guess an FF would never be assigned to them.

Anyway, as for civilian use, the numbers would definitely drop. First, because you don't need large damage control parties and as much redundancy. Second, because a civilian crew and especially passengers would not put up with cramped quarters.

BTW, just how cramped are interior spaces? A Noblesse-class DD, approximated to a cylinder 351 m tall and with a diameter of 2 m has an interior volume of 160 thousand cubic metres. If 99% of the interior volume is given to armour, machinery, storage, bunkerage, work spaces, etc. that leaves 1600 m³. With a crew of 300, that's 5.3 m³ of personal space. If the deck height is 2.5 m, that's 13.2 m² or 142 sq. ft. for their stateroom. That's about the size of my first university dorm room.

The ships aren't cylinders. They aren't as wide as the hammerheads, but the central parts are wider than those 24m.
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by tlb   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:17 am

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

Theemile wrote:Goodness my memory was off...

looking at my charts, Destroyers in 1900 had a crew of ~300, with the exception of the PEEP DDs, which had a crew of ~425.

CLs mostly had a crew of 450-500, with the exception of the old Courageous class , which had a crew of 385 - but that might just have been placed to stay true to text, and the Andy Nachtschatten (Nightshade) class with a crew of 547.

And the only data for Frigates is still the Gryf with 121.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:That's a bit low from a pre-automation warship with a full three-shift crew. They mustn't have any marines embarked, but you do want redundancy aboard a warship in case it goes into battle and there are casualties. We heard from the HMS Tristram crew that they were too few for some tasks, albeit one would guess an FF would never be assigned to them.

Anyway, as for civilian use, the numbers would definitely drop. First, because you don't need large damage control parties and as much redundancy. Second, because a civilian crew and especially passengers would not put up with cramped quarters.

BTW, just how cramped are interior spaces? A Noblesse-class DD, approximated to a cylinder 351 m tall and with a diameter of 2 m has an interior volume of 160 thousand cubic metres. If 99% of the interior volume is given to armour, machinery, storage, bunkerage, work spaces, etc. that leaves 1600 m³. With a crew of 300, that's 5.3 m³ of personal space. If the deck height is 2.5 m, that's 13.2 m² or 142 sq. ft. for their stateroom. That's about the size of my first university dorm room.

The ships aren't cylinders. They aren't as wide as the hammerheads, but the central parts are wider than those 24m.

I do not believe that anyone would take a frigate and convert it to a pleasure yacht, because the effort would be too great. The yacht would not need the armor, weapons, weapon magazines nor weapon control hardware. That all would free up a tremendous amount of space, but it would be easier to design and build a civilian ship without any of that, and design better quarters as a bonus.

This is what I could find for current crew sizes on Coast Guard patrol boats:
National Security Cutter (NSC), 418-foot Legend class
The first major cutter to join the Coast Guard as part of the fleet recapitalization plan, the national security cutter is the largest and most technologically advanced of the service’s new cutters. At 418 feet in length, capable of speeds up to 28 knots, with a crew complement of 122 and a displacement of 4,500 long tons, the Legend-class cutters are capable of better seakeeping and higher sustained speeds as well as greater endurance than legacy cutters.

High Endurance Cutters, 378-foot Secretary class (WHEC)
Highly versatile and capable of performing a variety of missions, these cutters operate throughout the world’s oceans. Because of their high endurance and their capabilities, similar to those of Navy warships, Secretary-class cutters occasionally deploy as part of Navy carrier battle groups. CGC Hamilton (WHEC 715), commissioned in 1967, was first of the class, which formed the mainstay of the Coast Guard from the 1970s into the 2010s.
The Secretary-class cutters are ideally suited for long-range, high-endurance missions, and for fulfilling the maritime security role, which includes drug interdiction, illegal immigrant interception, and fisheries patrol. The ships are powered by diesel engines and gas turbines, in a combined diesel and gas (CODAG) plant, and have controllable pitch propellers. Equipped with a helicopter flight deck, retractable hangar, and the facilities to support helicopter deployment, these 12 cutters were introduced to the Coast Guard inventory in the 1960s, and seven remain in service. The entire class was modernized through the Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program between 1985 and 1992, modernizing their helicopter flight deck facilities, radars and other sensors, and fire-control systems. With a crew of 160, each displaces 3,340 tons. Each is capable of accommodating a single HH-65 Dolphin helicopter.
Range: 2,400 nautical miles at 29 knots or 9,600miles at 19 knots (on gas turbines);
12,000 nautical miles at 14 knots (on diesels)

Medium Endurance Cutter,282-foot Alex Haley class (WMEC)
The cutter Alex Haley (WMEC 39) is a one-of-a-kind Coast Guard ship, named for the service’s first chief journalist, who later wrote Roots and won a Pulitzer Prize.
Commissioned in 1971 as the Navy salvage and rescue ship USS Edenton (ATS 1), the vessel was transferred to the Coast Guard in November 1997 for conversion into a medium endurance cutter. The cutter’s primary missions are law enforcement, domestic fisheries enforcement, and SAR in Alaskan waters. With a crew of 99, the ship can accommodate a single H-65 Dolphin or MH-60 Jayhawk.
Range: 10,000 nautical miles at 13 knots
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:54 am

ThinksMarkedly
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

tlb wrote:
ThinksMarkedly wrote:That's a bit low from a pre-automation warship with a full three-shift crew. They mustn't have any marines embarked, but you do want redundancy aboard a warship in case it goes into battle and there are casualties. We heard from the HMS Tristram crew that they were too few for some tasks, albeit one would guess an FF would never be assigned to them.


This is what I could find for current crew sizes on Coast Guard patrol boats:
National Security Cutter (NSC), 418-foot Legend class
The first major cutter to join the Coast Guard as part of the fleet recapitalization plan, the national security cutter is the largest and most technologically advanced of the service’s new cutters. At 418 feet in length, capable of speeds up to 28 knots, with a crew complement of 122 and a displacement of 4,500 long tons, the Legend-class cutters are capable of better seakeeping and higher sustained speeds as well as greater endurance than legacy cutters.


What I read from this is that a crew of 121 aboard a frigate is low, if we currently embark 122 aboard a cutter. (What's bigger, a cutter or a corvette?)
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by tlb   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:04 am

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

ThinksMarkedly wrote:That's a bit low from a pre-automation warship with a full three-shift crew. They mustn't have any marines embarked, but you do want redundancy aboard a warship in case it goes into battle and there are casualties. We heard from the HMS Tristram crew that they were too few for some tasks, albeit one would guess an FF would never be assigned to them.

tlb wrote:This is what I could find for current crew sizes on Coast Guard patrol boats:
National Security Cutter (NSC), 418-foot Legend class
The first major cutter to join the Coast Guard as part of the fleet recapitalization plan, the national security cutter is the largest and most technologically advanced of the service’s new cutters. At 418 feet in length, capable of speeds up to 28 knots, with a crew complement of 122 and a displacement of 4,500 long tons, the Legend-class cutters are capable of better seakeeping and higher sustained speeds as well as greater endurance than legacy cutters.

ThinksMarkedly wrote: What I read from this is that a crew of 121 aboard a frigate is low, if we currently embark 122 aboard a cutter. (What's bigger, a cutter or a corvette?)

Bur what you said was "That's a bit low from a pre-automation warship with a full three-shift crew" and here are three shift vessels (of perhaps the same complexity) with crews that are close to the same size.

What we do not know is the full particulars on how the RMN gave a vessel, about half the size of a destroyer, the range of a cruiser. At half the size of a destroyer, planners would want the crew size of a frigate to also be about half as big; otherwise you do not get the full cost savings needed to make them the preferred ship for anti-piracy duty. The question here is whether Silesia needed to make those compromises or is the stated crew size generous for a ship that did not need the range of an RMN frigate?
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by Theemile   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:03 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3634
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

First, a better MODERN comparison would be an attack sub - an enclosed space with life support required in a hostile environment, long patrols, long endurance on internal consumables. a surface ship has much more volume because it is designed with open decks and open volumes so it can have parts stick up above the water.

2ndly, the SCN probably did not use Frigates in the same manner as did Manticore or other powers. They did not escort convoys, they did not project power outside their sphere, and they did not support merchants far afield. The SCN's frigates were cheap alternatives to other warships, and used as just another light unit. The Gryf was supposed to be replaced by a DD in SCN use. So to the SCN, the FF was just the smallest ship type. so the cheaper, and the smaller the crew, the better.

I can see a Manty FF with a crew between 150 and 250. - still large enough to take prizes, but small enough to see manpower savings over a huge fleet.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by tlb   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:25 pm

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

Theemile wrote:First, a better MODERN comparison would be an attack sub - an enclosed space with life support required in a hostile environment, long patrols, long endurance on internal consumables. a surface ship has much more volume because it is designed with open decks and open volumes so it can have parts stick up above the water.

2ndly, the SCN probably did not use Frigates in the same manner as did Manticore or other powers. They did not escort convoys, they did not project power outside their sphere, and they did not support merchants far afield. The SCN's frigates were cheap alternatives to other warships, and used as just another light unit. The Gryf was supposed to be replaced by a DD in SCN use. So to the SCN, the FF was just the smallest ship type. so the cheaper, and the smaller the crew, the better.

I can see a Manty FF with a crew between 150 and 250. - still large enough to take prizes, but small enough to see manpower savings over a huge fleet.

I agree that an attack sub would be a better analog to a space ship, but I was only trying to get a handle on a good size for three shifts. One problem is that it might be a better analog to a destroyer or light cruiser than a frigate. In either case it is difficult to know how many stations are manned in a frigate when patrolling and how many people are needed at battle stations. However the Silesian frigate must have enough men to cover that, even though its patrols are not as long.

I understand the problem of comparing a Silesian frigate to an RMN one, but that can go either way: the Silesian ship does not have to worry about consumables, so could have a larger crew compared to a long ranged RMN ship. I would guess 200 as the top range, only to allow for some prize crews; but that also depends on how they are used: if they just go in company of the frigate to the nearest Silesian authority and the crew is retrieved, then the frigate could run shorthanded for that trip.
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:34 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

tlb wrote:Note the figures from this article:
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.

The words "cost-efficient" only apply for tasks that both classes can do.


This is not an accurate comparison:
The DD-1000s are a completely new design, nearly everything about them were new cutting-edge design technology, even the placement of the missile tubes was new. You are lumping all of the costs of the new equipment development into the cost of 1 ship. The Type 23 has virtually nothing new included - it is completely off-the-shelf equipment and even the design is conventional - in-fact the forward section looks like a 60s Russian cruiser (Kara/Kresta) and the stern looks like an OHP FFG (or perhaps Udaloy) class, Are you guys Mi-6 still stealing old Russian ship designs and using them for your own ships? (lol) so the comparisons are the letteral definition of the apples-to-oranges analogy. The figures change when you lump on the original development costs of the equipment used on the Type-23 time inflation factors to the build cost.
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by tlb   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:48 pm

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

tlb wrote:Note the figures from this article:
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.

The words "cost-efficient" only apply for tasks that both classes can do.

MAD-4A wrote: This is not an accurate comparison:
The DD-1000s are a completely new design, nearly everything about them were new cutting-edge design technology, even the placement of the missile tubes was new. You are lumping all of the costs of the new equipment development into the cost of 1 ship. The Type 23 has virtually nothing new included - it is completely off-the-shelf equipment and even the design is conventional - in-fact the forward section looks like a 60s Russian cruiser (Kara/Kresta) and the stern looks like an OHP FFG (or perhaps Udaloy) class, Are you guys Mi-6 still stealing old Russian ship designs and using them for your own ships? (lol) so the comparisons are the letteral definition of the apples-to-oranges analogy. The figures change when you lump on the original development costs of the equipment used on the Type-23 time inflation factors to the build cost.

Not me, the quote is from the article. Once all the ships in the class are built, then someone can spread a percentage of the development cost to get a per ship figure. I only put the numbers in to compare a frigate to a destroyer.
Top

Return to Honorverse