The French word 'aviso', used for the A69s, is translated as sloop in my dictionary. We got it from Dutch sloep (pronounced sloop).
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
And Germany called them "Escort Ships" in line with that ("Geleitschiff") - funky enough always with a NATO F designation.
Personal opinion?
A frigate is intended to provide escort to unarmed ships against hostile attacks.
A destroyer is meant to be part of a force seeking out an enemy force.
A cruiser is meant to provide escort to capital units.
One can easily see a connection there with the old USN definitions as well - "frigate" as escort, just for capital ships instead of auxiliaries; "destroyer escort" as an escort acting in squadrons like destroyers.
A corvette (or sloop or aviso) would probably be best classified in the above sense as a frigate intended for a limited action radius (e.g. a "littoral frigate").
An offshore patrol vessel is just that. Nothing else, and not within the above scheme.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
From memory in WW2 the sloops were purpose built with full military specification hulls, while the corvette's and later the frigates were built to less stringent specifications so they could be built in civilian shipyards and more quickly. Presumably the same yards ferries, coastal traders, whalers and large fishing trawlers were built at.
I would opt for the following classifications:
Corvette: Mine Counter Measures, AAW sef-defence, Light Gun - Littoral Environment, Low-Medium Threat Escort (Anti-Piracy) & Fleet Mine Protection
Frigate: AsW & Local AAW Seff-defence, Shore Bombardment Role - Global Reach, Show of Force & Fleet AsW protection
Destroyer: Area AAW Defence & Local AsW Self-defence, Shore Bombardment Role - Global Reach, Show of Force & Fleet AAW protection
Cruiser: Strategic Asset AAW Fleet Defence,Shore Bombardment Role, Deep Strike (TacTom) and AsW Self-Defence - Global Reach, Show fo Force & Fleet C&C Flag Role
Thats true but I think only because the Sloops were mostly built to pre war concepts. So I think the Black Swans and Grimsby class would have been known as Sloops.
I know they are only names but I do prefer the heritage of them even if the role has change, rather than just using abreviations like: LCS, SCS and OPV (I guess you could call that a Cutter reflecting the policing/revenue nature)
Under that definition, Type 45, Horizon & F100 would count as cruisers, since they are tasked with air defence of capital units.
A frigate is a fullly rigged ship with one unbroken battery deck.... ups, wrong century... 
Historically. When steelships, propelled by engines and armed with heavy artillery becan to emerge, size/weight "made all the difference". The size/weight told you something about the amount of armour and the size of the artillery that the ship could carry. Properties that was decessive for judging the power of the ship in question.
So it made sense to differentiate quite finely between ships according to those "attributes" Hence you had Battleships, Battlecruisers, Heavy/Norm/Light cruisers etc.
To day that (armour and size/weight of artillery) doesn't matter a lot. The armour is a relic of the past and the "artillery" of today is either smallish or substituted by missiles, who might require "space", but havn't got the weight of the artillery of old. (A smallish ship can carry large missiles while a small ship can't carry a large cannon ("large" as in WW1-WW2 large))
So I suggest that we partly of historical reasons, partly of the "Space" attribute that still has functional meaning, continue with size/weight as a class parameter. But we do not need so many different classes of size/weight, since that is not that important any longer.
So corvettes, patrolships are small/tiny warships.
A frigate is a medium sized warship (perhaps subdivided in light/norm/heavy)
A Cruiser is a large warship (perhaps subdivided in light/norm/heavy)
(battleships aren't so modern anymore).
Carriers, LPH etc are a bread apart.
On an aggregated level I don't think it makes much sense to designate ship types by their function/weaponry, that would end up in a huge mixture of different classes. F.ex. Small ships can have significant anti-air or anti-surface cababilities what to call them? what about Multirole ships etc.
I don't understand the "destroyer" designation, I think it's unneeded. If you want to underline f.ex. extended anti air cababilities, you can f.ex. talk of a AAW-frigate or if it's a large ship: an AAW-cruiser. All larger warships today have anti air cababilities in a larger or smaller degree. I don't understand why "extended" air cababilities should merrit a whole new class designation.
If you, by destroyer, want to make a distinction between "frigates" of say up to and around 6000t (LCF) and ships upto 10000t (Ticonderoga cruiser), you get a lot of large frigates and smaller Destroyers who are totally alike for all purposes.
If you think that "7000 tons" is significant, I'll have to ask, type wise, what's the huge difference between a Ticonderoga or a Burke or a Type45 and then an F100 or LCF. What merrits the different type classification? Is it because it has more "space" that we need progressivly to call it a frigate/destroyer/Cruiser?
If so, what's the use/function/importance of the added "space"?
Historically. When steelships, propelled by engines and armed with heavy artillery becan to emerge, size/weight "made all the difference". The size/weight told you something about the amount of armour and the size of the artillery that the ship could carry. Properties that was decessive for judging the power of the ship in question.
So it made sense to differentiate quite finely between ships according to those "attributes" Hence you had Battleships, Battlecruisers, Heavy/Norm/Light cruisers etc.
To day that (armour and size/weight of artillery) doesn't matter a lot. The armour is a relic of the past and the "artillery" of today is either smallish or substituted by missiles, who might require "space", but havn't got the weight of the artillery of old. (A smallish ship can carry large missiles while a small ship can't carry a large cannon ("large" as in WW1-WW2 large))
So I suggest that we partly of historical reasons, partly of the "Space" attribute that still has functional meaning, continue with size/weight as a class parameter. But we do not need so many different classes of size/weight, since that is not that important any longer.
So corvettes, patrolships are small/tiny warships.
A frigate is a medium sized warship (perhaps subdivided in light/norm/heavy)
A Cruiser is a large warship (perhaps subdivided in light/norm/heavy)
(battleships aren't so modern anymore).
Carriers, LPH etc are a bread apart.
On an aggregated level I don't think it makes much sense to designate ship types by their function/weaponry, that would end up in a huge mixture of different classes. F.ex. Small ships can have significant anti-air or anti-surface cababilities what to call them? what about Multirole ships etc.
I don't understand the "destroyer" designation, I think it's unneeded. If you want to underline f.ex. extended anti air cababilities, you can f.ex. talk of a AAW-frigate or if it's a large ship: an AAW-cruiser. All larger warships today have anti air cababilities in a larger or smaller degree. I don't understand why "extended" air cababilities should merrit a whole new class designation.
If you, by destroyer, want to make a distinction between "frigates" of say up to and around 6000t (LCF) and ships upto 10000t (Ticonderoga cruiser), you get a lot of large frigates and smaller Destroyers who are totally alike for all purposes.
If you think that "7000 tons" is significant, I'll have to ask, type wise, what's the huge difference between a Ticonderoga or a Burke or a Type45 and then an F100 or LCF. What merrits the different type classification? Is it because it has more "space" that we need progressivly to call it a frigate/destroyer/Cruiser?
If so, what's the use/function/importance of the added "space"?
Last edited:
In days of old there were things like sloops (little ships, often specialised), frigates (able to act autonomously on a global level or as part of small fleets) and ships of the line (capital ships) for large strategic plays.A frigate is a fullly rigged ship with one unbroken battery deck.... ups, wrong century...
Historically. When steelships, propelled by engines and armed with heavy artillery becan to emerge, size/weight "made all the difference". The size/weight told you something about the amount of armour and the size of the artillery that the ship could carry. Properties that was decessive for judging the power of the ship in question.
So it made sense to differentiate quite finely between ships according to those "attributes" Hence you had Battleships, Battlecruisers, Heavy/Norm/Light cruisers etc.
To day that (armour and size/weight of artillery) doesn't matter a lot. The armour is a relic of the past and the "artillery" of today is either smallish or substituted by missiles, who might require "space", but havn't got the weight of the artillery of old. (A smallish ship can carry large missiles while a small ship can't carry a large cannon ("large" as in WW1-WW2 large))
So I suggest that we partly of historical reasons, partly of the "Space" attribute that still has functional meaning, continue with size/weight as a class parameter. But we do not need so many different classes of size/weight, since that is not that important any longer.
So corvettes, patrolships are small/tiny warships.
A frigate is a medium sized warship (perhaps subdivided in light/norm/heavy)
A Cruiser is a large warship (perhaps subdivided in light/norm/heavy)
(battleships aren't so modern anymore).
Carriers, LPH etc are a bread apart.
On an aggregated level I don't think it makes much sense to designate ship types by their function/weaponry, that would end up in a huge mixture of different classes. F.ex. Small ships can have significant anti-air or anti-surface cababilities what to call them? what about Multirole ships etc.
I don't understand the "destroyer" designation, I think it's unneeded. If you want to underline f.ex. extended anti air cababilities, you can f.ex. talk of a AAW-frigate or if it's a large ship: an AAW-cruiser. All larger warships today have anti air cababilities in a larger or smaller degree. I don't understand why "extended" air cababilities should merrit a whole new class designation.
If you, by destroyer, want to make a distinction between "frigates" of say up to and around 6000t (LCF) and ships upto 10000t (Ticonderoga cruiser), you get a lot of large frigates and smaller Destroyers who are totally alike for all purposes.
If you think that "7000 tons" is significant, I'll have to ask, type wise, what's the huge difference between a Ticonderoga or a Burke or a Type45 and then an F100 or LCF. What merrits the different type classification? Is it because it has more "space" that we need progressivly to call it a frigate/destroyer/Cruiser?
If so, what's the use/function/importance of the added "space"?
Destroyer is a recent designation (originally torpedo boat destroyer, and not related to a large ship at all).
Thus I can easily see how today one has corvettes (the little ships), frigates (the blue ocean warships able to act autonomously or as small fleets) and capital ships (carriers, LPH, LPD, SSN, SSBN etc).
Do we need "destroyer"? One can see how this term can relate to air warfare specialist ships - of whatever size - based on the original definition. Originally the threat to the capital ships was torpedo boats. Today it's aircraft.
Voila!
Troothsayer
New Member
A bit of Royal Navy news in amongst the discussion
An update on HMS Queen Elizabeth can be found on the RN website including a picture of a large 4 storey high sponson under construction
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/The_section_of_the_starboard_aft_sponson.JPG
Also, interesting news from the North West Evening Mail reporting that a BAE director has said that work will begin soon on the 5th Astute SSN
North West Evening Mail | News | Barrow | Work set to start on fifth Astute submarine at BAE Systems Barrow
A link on the RN website gives the names of the 5th,6th & 7th boats as HMS Agamemnon, HMS Anson & HMS Ajax. First i've heard of that, has this information been released anywhere before?
An update on HMS Queen Elizabeth can be found on the RN website including a picture of a large 4 storey high sponson under construction
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/The_section_of_the_starboard_aft_sponson.JPG
Also, interesting news from the North West Evening Mail reporting that a BAE director has said that work will begin soon on the 5th Astute SSN
North West Evening Mail | News | Barrow | Work set to start on fifth Astute submarine at BAE Systems Barrow
A link on the RN website gives the names of the 5th,6th & 7th boats as HMS Agamemnon, HMS Anson & HMS Ajax. First i've heard of that, has this information been released anywhere before?
Not heard it before, but can't complain about the names. All in line with tradition, & there are some good historical associations.
Troothsayer
New Member
Yes, it seems like its not official but the commander of HMS Turbulent seems to have spilled the beans in a webchat
Royal Navy - Careers - Live Chat
HMS Agamemnon is an interesting choice as it'll be the first use of the name in a century.
Except that the classification of the tallships followed sail plan and battery decks and not fuction/rolle of ship.
Of all the cool names of RN ships in history, I prefer the "HMS DICTATOR", wonder why they don't use it anylonger....A bit of Royal Navy news in amongst the discussion
An update on HMS Queen Elizabeth can be found on the RN website including a picture of a large 4 storey high sponson under construction
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/The_section_of_the_starboard_aft_sponson.JPG
Also, interesting news from the North West Evening Mail reporting that a BAE director has said that work will begin soon on the 5th Astute SSN
North West Evening Mail | News | Barrow | Work set to start on fifth Astute submarine at BAE Systems Barrow
A link on the RN website gives the names of the 5th,6th & 7th boats as HMS Agamemnon, HMS Anson & HMS Ajax. First i've heard of that, has this information been released anywhere before?
excellent names I like them lots as swerve said great name associations Agamemnon particularly good another name which has a good links to the great RN battles. Makes me sorry that so few Navies have such a good naming convention as the RN.A bit of Royal Navy news in amongst the discussion
An update on HMS Queen Elizabeth can be found on the RN website including a picture of a large 4 storey high sponson under construction
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/The_section_of_the_starboard_aft_sponson.JPG
Also, interesting news from the North West Evening Mail reporting that a BAE director has said that work will begin soon on the 5th Astute SSN
North West Evening Mail | News | Barrow | Work set to start on fifth Astute submarine at BAE Systems Barrow
A link on the RN website gives the names of the 5th,6th & 7th boats as HMS Agamemnon, HMS Anson & HMS Ajax. First i've heard of that, has this information been released anywhere before?
Quick question have all the names for Astuits been used for battleships or line vessels ie 3 rates and higher. Great to see so much progress soon it will be counting down the start of PoW build. also when the decommissioning date on the last T-42 batch 2 HMS Liverpool as it seems to have lasted longer than the rest i would have thought the RN would be very keen get rid of these horrid boats (B2)
Now for more on C1, Ocean replacement, MARS as procurement is never done, looks like a very impressive fleet in the making.
I don't think so. Astute, Ambush & Artful have been used for submarines. Audacious has been used for three battleships, a merchantman disguised as a warship, & an aircraft carrier - but the last was changed before launch to Eagle.
Yes, and it would make sense. It might take some creativity to fit certain units (like F125, or the French Floreals) into the scheme, but for the RN it would be a clear-cut affair: Type 45 cruisers, Type 23 and later C1/C2 destroyers. C3 as OPVs, possibly corvettes (limited-role light frigates).
This would also do away with the necessity to class a ship just based on its combat capability regarding a certain part of the full spectrum. And it would be in line with previous definitions.
would be like the politically motivated upgrading of the USN with Destroyers being upgraded to Cruisers and so forth like the Belknap class. Don't image it would be politically workable. Just thinking when was the last time the RN had 6 Cruisers.