Not sure - but maybe RN considers Achillies a RNZN name -- as Achillies was transferred to the RNZN in 1941ish (?)
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
So when a ship, say of 6000t, is asigned to escort convoys we classify it as a frigate.
When the same ship is (later) assigned to a " force seeking out an enemy force." we have to re-classify it as a destroyer?
I think the problem here is "the destroyer" classification. Which, as far as I can see, is a role bound classification not inline with traditional classification schemes, that always or at least for the far greater part had to do with construction, layout and/or size/weight of the ship.
F.ex.
The frigate of mid 17th to late 19th century, was not classified according to role, but according to a specific layout of the sail plan and the battery/gun arrangement. That frigates often was used in a specific role, is another thing At which point I hasten to point out that frigates in practice also partipated in larger engagements and often also fought in "the line", in the extend that there were a line at all (many battles were fought in "melee", typically after a more or less formal approch).
The battleships, cruisers etc of the first half of the 20th, were also classified, not according to role, but according to attributes like size and weight. That the ships of the different classifications, often had similar roles fitting to their design is another thing.
As you certainly know,Many of the ships of Kriegsmarine of the 30ties were exactly designed in such a way as to appear to belonging to one classification, which was typically decided by displacement, while more or less suited to act in the role of a ship, that would normally belong to a larger classification, inorder to circumvent the restraints of the Versailles treaty and other navy treaties. Again the clasification system had nothing or little to do with "role".
A question on the QE.
Does anybody know which kind of propulsion system this ship will get?
I was under the impression that it would have the same type of propulsion system as the Type45, which, as far as I know, is an electric diesel-(gas)turbine configuration.
Though I read somewhere that it would be electric-turbine only?
Anybody know?
Does anybody know which kind of propulsion system this ship will get?
I was under the impression that it would have the same type of propulsion system as the Type45, which, as far as I know, is an electric diesel-(gas)turbine configuration.
Though I read somewhere that it would be electric-turbine only?
Anybody know?
citizen578
New Member
2x RR MT30 (36MW) gas turbines, 4x 10MW Diesels.
Thats not completely true, a Frigate was a very broad class, from very small ships to large 44 gun cruisers, probably actually carrying more than a 50 gun Ship of the Line. The Frigate could stand in then line with them, as I surpose early 20th Century Battlecruisers did, but their core role was as fleet scouts and to act independently on trade route protection, which is the link to why the RN named the Rivers Class Frigates
Yes & yes.
And CVF has room for extra turbines, which could be installed at a refit if it's ever decided more power is needed.
That is quite radical, I have never heard of ships being designed from the start with the capability to take different engine configerations at refits.
Aren't the T45s using WR21 and the CVF MT30?
Last edited:
nope it was rhetorical I just couldn't think when their was last those sort of numbers and thanks that seem right period for the old WW2 cruisers still to be in commission.
slight edit 1805 yes on the CVF and T-45 power plants also the CVF shares its GT with one of the LCS's the Lockmart one
Last edited:
It does seem staggering they have put 2 x MT30s on a 3,000t ship . I would have thought one would have given it 35 knots+ I think the WR21 is very expensive because of its technically advance features.
I know most of the danish-norwegian navy, but I assume that other navies of the time had similar practices
While there are exceptions, generally it holds true (mid 17th-late 19th cent) that a frigate was a ship with an unbroken battery deck (most often covered, but not necessarely). Further more the ship had a full "sail plan" (Not sure of the correct word, maybe full rigging?) on 3 masts.
F.ex. this
http://www.hardysweb.dk/images/JYLLAND.jpg
is a frigate (Jylland 1860). With a full sail plan on 3 masts and an unbroken (covered in this case) battery deck (It also had guns on the deck, but that's not important). Notice that this is a "screw-frigate"(Correct word?) who also had a steam engine propulsion.)
this ship Najaden (approx 1800)
http://www.orlogsbasen.dk/tegn/91-2000.jpg
This ship is also a frigate due to 3 masts with full sail plan and one unbroken battery deck. Note that the battery deck is not covered.
This 1664 ship
http://www.orlogsbasen.dk/thumb/A931.jpg
and this 1687 ship (Elefanten)
http://www.orlogsbasen.dk/mthumb/187-2000.jpg
(The model is, btw, an orginal model)
Strictly speaking we don't know the sail plan of those two, assuming something like a full sail plan, they are also frigates.
If we go much further back than mid-17th century, at least in the danish navy, the term "frigate" seems to simply have been used to denote a warship of significant size, and seems to have been used interchangeably with the dutch word "Orlog" (ship) which means a War(Ship).
Another problem of early 17th century ships is that the details of the rigging of the ships are often unclear, and it's a point of discussion when "full sail" plans becomes a standard.
Frigates and lineships had full sailplan, and respectively one or more than one unbroken battery decks. That was the main warships. Now a ship that wasnt a frigate (because of a broken battery deck) but had a full sail plan was, at least from around 1800s) known as a "brig" or "Orlogsbrig" (War-brig). Irrespectable of the ships that had a brig rigging (a two mast ship).
Ships of the navy that weren't with a full sail plan and weren't brigs was simply known as a "Skonnert" (maybe the same as a Schooner?). Eventhough a skonnert, is also a ship with specific sail plans, but in the navy it had a different meaning.
The danish navy use of "Skonnert" are alike, I assume, to the RN use of the word "Bark" (not to be confused with a barque)
Large warships usually had full sail plan, since that was the best sail plan for a given mast in terms of wind force. But it required a lot of hands, something that warships anyway had. Merchant ships rarely, if ever, had a full sail plan, and used other, less manpower hungry, rigging.
All fine and well, but it is true that Frigates did have a different role to a Ship of the Line, so it was not just that they had a single deck creating the classification, or this was certainly the case in the RN.
The trouble with classifications just based on a physical feature such as size rather than role is that anything small is regarded as inferior when it may just have a different mission where size requires it to be small.
It's true that a smaller ship like a frigate compared to a heavy ship like a lineship had, at least in theory, different roles. But the role is not what makede it into a frigate, as I try to explain above.
When one say a "frigate" (say from mid/late 17th to mid/late 19th century) one is talking about a ship with varring size, but always fully rigged and with a single main battery deck. (There are ofcourse exceptions particulary regarding the gun deck).
How did the USN Constitution frigate become De Zeven Provinciën frigate?
As the panzer ships replaces the sailling ships, the old calssification system looses it's meaning, but tradition carries some of the terms (like frigate) on to the new ships. which as far as I can see, nearly, always denote some relative size difference to other classes. During and after WW2, the ships known as Frigates/destroyers, gets a rivival as the main surface war ships of the navies and the classification names sticks, eventhough a WW2 frigate doesn't have a lot in common with the De Zeven Provinciën or the USN Constitution.
Nothing to do with role - but the role can have something to do with size.
I think it was only the RN and Commonwealth Navies that called escorts, Frigates in WW2 and the link to the older concept was fairly poor but came from the trade protection role older frigates had undertake very much anti privateer activity. I would say the De Zeven Provincien has more in common with the 44 gun heavy frigate/cruiser types than a River or Loch class. I think the term Destroyer is more confusing as it is purely tied to defensive AA work of destroyer in WW2. As people have pointed out this was also done by Cruisers almost the same size as T45. I am not sure this is that important but I think it would be better to call the T45 a cruiser.
Agree, and it is probably difficult to trace the continuous use of "frigate" through the first half of the 20th century. I also think that you are right, in the extend that modern frigates where named after the older frigate sail type, with an refference to the role that frigates played/should play. Though that doesn't mean that the old frigate type was role based or that the new frigate type should be role based.
I totally agree with the destroyer part, it's a strange classification. The Type45 is either a frigate or a cruiser, imho. I think, for good reasons, that you rarely see a ship classification based on "roles". f.ex. because "Role" is likely to be subject for change, as we have seen with modern frigates.
Btw the "cruiser" classification presents her own problems, and originally is an example of a role based classification. The term "Cruiser" originates in a 17th century dutch word; "kruiser". This is a smaller fast ship intented to harraz, merchant raiding etc.
In the end of the 19th century, the cruiser takes two paths; panzer-cruisers like the russian General Admiral og Gerzog Edinburgski (1875 and 1877).
And fast Cruisers like the early and smallish british Iris og Mercury 1879, evolving into the leander class (1885). With the chiliean but british buildt Esmeralda of 1884. The arch typical cruiser is born.
Some other gossip picked up from some other Navy forums is that Liam Fox seems to have dropped a hint that carriers are crucial for power projection but the actual aircraft mix may have to be looked at. Would that mean numbers of F35B or a cat launched alternative? I cant see there is a cost affordable alternative by the time you add a new aircraft, cats, traps and re train the crews.
Elsewhere a report lifted from meretmarine suggests a faulty batch of Aster 15 may be the reason why the SAMPSON/ASTER trials have had some hiccups which would be good news if true, well good news as long as you dont take a faulty batch to war.
Elsewhere a report lifted from meretmarine suggests a faulty batch of Aster 15 may be the reason why the SAMPSON/ASTER trials have had some hiccups which would be good news if true, well good news as long as you dont take a faulty batch to war.
Troothsayer
New Member
I saw that quote about 'aircraft mix' in the FT, It's a strange one because the Tories would need savings now (between 2011-2015) and it seems there is an acceptance that aside from a lack of air power at sea giving the UK no force projection, that there are minimal savings on ditching the carriers now.
If you look at the memorandum of understanding here (page 88)
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/JSF_PSFD_MOU_-_Update_12_2009.PDF
The UK are only scheduled to have taken delivery of 19 F-35b by the end of 2015 anyway, in reality not much savings to be made there either, 85 of the 138 planes are not due for procurement for another decade.
Where are the savings? I can't see it. Is it possible they may shift JSF purchases back? Do the GR9's even have enough airframe life in them to make it past 2018?
I suppose they could cobble 9 F35s together in some form of initial squadron, there might just be enouth Harriers left for a similar squadron, add a few Merlins and apaches,maybe a tour of the meditteranen for some landings from Spanish and Italian Harriers, or host some USMC F35's and you have the apearance of a busy carrier and in fact that would still be an impressive upgrade on what we have now. Who knows, but at least with F35 the production line will stay open long enough to put the decision off.
Doh! Yes, of course you're right: WR21 on Type 45.
IIRC there was a possibility of CVF having another GT, & the RN wanted it, but it was omitted on cost grounds. However, there is still space for it, & plenty of weight margin.
The Harriers are tired both the RAF/RN and USMC planes are at their limits once they retire they will be maxed out By 2018 the harriers will be in the scrap yard they've already had two life extensions.having a mixed harrier F35 air wing I believe will happen but for as short a time as possible as the F35 deliveries continue.
I think in regards to saving the small numbers procured now will work in F35 favor as it won't give the Treasury sticker shock at the price and they can be reminded of the investment and the amount of UK content in every F35 to fund the program through. Liam Fox seems to making the right noised vis a vis the RN.