Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Rich and Corporations]

It's still redundant. Why do you need a massive 6,500 ton frigate if you have other, smaller frigates that already fill the same roles separately? The entire purpose of dedicated anti-air or anti-submarine ships is to avoid the need (and expense) for one massive combined ship.

I mean 2 other types of frigates, each weights 6000 ton. And deployment ratio would be 2:2:1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer_leader Maybe you're thinking of destroyers and destroyer leaders?

[United States of PA]

I'm curious what the reasoning is for the 8-in. guns on a heavy cruiser? I always figured that heavy cruisers had at least 10 inchers and most had 12's.

General rule of thumb Light cruisers have weapons in the 152mm range, and Heavy cruisers have guns larger than that (Like the Russian 180mm) but no bigger than the 8in (203mm). I dont know of any ship to use 10in guns besides (i think it is) the Pennsylvania Class Armored Cruiser back before WWI, and 12in is entirely Battleship/Battlecruiser range.

Then it's not really a "frigate" anymore and the role that it was supposed to fill goes unfilled.

Designations like Frigate, Destroyer etc. should be made based on the role it is intended to perform within ones armed services. Ticonderoga is a Cruiser in USN service, in my NS nation it would be a Air Defense Destroyer. Admiral Kuznetsov is a Heavy Aviation Cruiser in Russian service, but a Aircraft Carrier through and through to every other nation IRL. Designation is just a word. For example, Alvaro de Bazan is a frigate in Spanish service, but the pretty identical Hobart class is a destroyer in Australian service.

In modern navies, frigates are used to protect other warships and merchant-marine ships, especially as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups, and merchant convoys. Ship classes dubbed "frigates" have also more closely resembled corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, and even battleships. The rank "frigate captain" derives from the name of this type of ship.

7,500 tonnes isnt even that outrageous. FREMM clocks in at almost 7,000. Hell, USS Leahy was initially designated as a Frigate too, at over 8,000 tonnes. TF2000 is supposed to be over 7,000tonnes. Saying his ship is a Destroyer just because it weighs over 7,000 tonnes is foolish imho. It may be to your navy, but it doesnt mean it is for everyones.

[Gallan Systems]

Air defense destroyer is too European/British for a freedom-based country surely.

Might as well use frigate.

Or ship.

Dumbla being a liberty country uses frigate for everything. ):

Even starships~

[The Soodean Imperium]

General rule of thumb Light cruisers have weapons in the 152mm range, and Heavy cruisers have guns larger than that (Like the Russian 180mm) but no bigger than the 8in (203mm). I dont know of any ship to use 10in guns besides (i think it is) the Pennsylvania Class Armored Cruiser back before WWI, and 12in is entirely Battleship/Battlecruiser range.

It wasn't just a general rule of thumb. For the five leading naval powers of the interwar era - US, UK, Japan, France, and Italy - it was international law.

Prior to WWI, and especially on pre-dreadnought ships, 10-inch guns were fairly common. By my count, Argentina, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Imperial Russia, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US all operated pre-WWI warships with some kind of gun in the 240mm-280mm range. Some were on battleships, some were on large armored cruisers, and a few were the secondary battery on large pre-dreadnoughts. But the Washington Naval Treaty, signed in 1922, declared that no individual cruiser could exceed a standard displacement of 10,000 tonnes or a main battery 8 inches in caliber. This, by the way, is where we get Japanese cruisers like the Takao class, which were designed to maximize speed, firepower, and armor on a 10,000-tonne hull but ended up being severely top-heavy.

The London Naval Treaty of 1931 took this a step further, officially defining a Light Cruiser as carrying guns of 6.1 inches/155mm or below, and a Heavy Cruiser as carrying guns between 6.1 and 8 inches. Therefore, 203mm/8 inches became standard on 1930s heavy cruisers: anything higher was outlawed, and anything lower (but still above 155mm) was not making full use of the treaty terms. 155mm then became standard on light cruisers, as it was the highest gun caliber they could carry before being counted as Heavy Cruisers in the London tonnage limits. Again, this is where we get the Japanese Mogami class "light cruiser" with its 155mm triple turrets that can be switched for 203mm twin turrets. The Soviet Union's 180mm was an exception, as the USSR was not a signatory to either treaty when the Kirov class was built. So was Finland's 254mm, used on the coastal defense ship Väinämöinen.

[Novorden]

That is one great looking ship you got there .

Thanks, It took a while to make, so that's appreciated

And then the Des Moines-class comes looking for trouble. (not really WW2 cruiser, I know, but meh, it straddles the line sorta)
In which case there's major doubt you can break contact fast enough to avoid damage to the propulsion system.

As you say, unless it's a time traveling ship i don't think i need to worry. Maybe if it was a Takao-class cruiser...

I'm curious what the reasoning is for the 8-in. guns on a heavy cruiser? I always figured that heavy cruisers had at least 10 inchers and most had 12's.

As others have mentioned the 8" (203mm) was the international "standard" for heavy cruisers.

7,500 tonnes isnt even that outrageous. FREMM clocks in at almost 7,000. Hell, USS Leahy was initially designated as a Frigate too, at over 8,000 tonnes. TF2000 is supposed to be over 7,000tonnes. Saying his ship is a Destroyer just because it weighs over 7,000 tonnes is foolish imho. It may be to your navy, but it doesnt mean it is for everyones.

The Type 26 Global Combat Ship is apparently going to be in the 8,000+ t range when fully loaded.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's still redundant. Why do you need a massive 6,500 ton frigate if you have other, smaller frigates that already fill the same roles separately? The entire purpose of dedicated anti-air or anti-submarine ships is to avoid the need (and expense) for one massive combined ship.

I mean 2 other types of frigates, each weights 6000 ton. And deployment ratio would be 2:2:1

That's even worse and even more redundant.

Now you have three ships of roughly the same size, two of which have clear roles and the third of which seems to have no role but to duplicate the functions of the others, and little need for them to be so large given that you still have larger surface combatants anyway.

Designations like Frigate, Destroyer etc. should be made based on the role it is intended to perform within ones armed services. Ticonderoga is a Cruiser in USN service, in my NS nation it would be a Air Defense Destroyer. Admiral Kuznetsov is a Heavy Aviation Cruiser in Russian service, but a Aircraft Carrier through and through to every other nation IRL. Designation is just a word. For example, Alvaro de Bazan is a frigate in Spanish service, but the pretty identical Hobart class is a destroyer in Australian service.

7,500 tonnes isnt even that outrageous. FREMM clocks in at almost 7,000. Hell, USS Leahy was initially designated as a Frigate too, at over 8,000 tonnes. TF2000 is supposed to be over 7,000tonnes. Saying his ship is a Destroyer just because it weighs over 7,000 tonnes is foolish imho. It may be to your navy, but it doesnt mean it is for everyones.

If you actually look at the reasons why such ships are classified as such in their given navies, it does illuminate some questions in this case. European nations classify their ships based on role and the US Navy used to use a similar system until it reclassified ships according to broader capabilities (which unsurprisingly tend to correlate with displacement). This second method is often taken as the default on NS because it is very easily understood and most players are more familiar with the USN than they are with European navies (which is the same reason why USN-style hull classification symbols predominate rather than European pennant numbers).

In this case, it is rather clear that the latter is the case with Theodosiya's proposal, as it appears to encompass multi-role, air-defense, and anti-submarine ships alike. Therefore, it does not appear to be based on role, because every role is present. If it were based on size, then one could make the argument that large frigates do exist, but these tend to only serve in navies that do not operate "destroyers" at all. Theodosiya has both destroyers and cruisers, both presumably larger and more capable than its frigates. The proposed linear progression in gun caliber and quantity supports this relationship.

Which begs the question as to what exactly these larger classifications are supposed to do if the frigates are already so large and capable? At 6,500 tons, they're too big and expensive to be built in the large numbers necessary to handle traditional frigate escort duties, as they already approach the capabilities (and costs) offered by modern multi-roles like Arleigh Burke. Their claimed capabilities likely aren't needed either; nations that operate large, capable air-defense frigates like the Netherlands do so because they don't have any destroyers at all. But that's not the case here. This of course isn't uncommon in many NS navies, but moving each category up to the category above by building "the best" means that the bottom of the pyramid ends up empty.

This would be like operating Arleigh Burke alongside Álvaro de Bazán. There isn't much point because the latter is almost as capable and expensive as the former, duplicating their capabilities. But this leaves the role that would be filled by a cheaper frigate like Oliver Hazard Perry vacant. Álvaro de Bazán would be too expensive to build in the same quantity as a fleet of Perrys, leaving the fleet short on light escorts while having heavier escorts that unnecessarily duplicate each others' roles.

The Type 26 Global Combat Ship is apparently going to be in the 8,000+ t range when fully loaded.

Type 26 is a frigate because ASW ships in the Royal Navy are designated as frigates regardless of size. Type 45 is a destroyer because air defense ships are classified as destroyers regardless of size. This is European practice but not American practice, and for better or worse most players start out with the USN as a base, because it tends to be most similar to the sort of navy they desire.

[The Selkie]

[...]

The Type 26 Global Combat Ship is apparently going to be in the 8,000+ t range when fully loaded.

Type 26 is a frigate because ASW ships in the Royal Navy are designated as frigates regardless of size. Type 45 is a destroyer because air defense ships are classified as destroyers regardless of size. This is European practice but not American practice, and for better or worse most players start out with the USN as a base, because it tends to be most similar to the sort of navy they desire.

Good thing I don't go by any practice, but by what sounds cooler...

[Minroz]

I've been searching for a good frigate for my navy. The best of the best if possible.

Based on this site, I've been thinking of picking Admiral Gorshkov-class since it seems to fit the criteria as an modern frigate.

What did you think?

What is "best" depends on what you require. Lists like these are fairly worthless because they assess arbitrary characteristics and not how well a given ship meets the design requirements set forth by the navy that commissioned it. There are a lot of navies that do not want the "most powerful" frigate, they want an affordable ship that balances capabilities and yet is cheap enough to produce in large enough numbers to be deployed widely. Or a frigate that provides very specific abilities to complement other ships in service with other capabilities. It's rather pointless to have the most powerful ship if you can only build five yet have a need for ten or twenty ships.

For instance, this list presumes that every frigate should be a complete multi-role design and penalizes all those that are not, even when it was clear they were never meant to be multi-role frigates from the start. It penalizes many frigates for not including a towed array sonar, which is an expensive piece of equipment and not necessary for an air defense frigate like Sachsen or De Zeven Provinciën. In both cases these ships are meant to operate in conjunction with other ships that carry more robust sonar instead, with the air defense ships providing protection to the squadron from aircraft while the anti-submarine frigates have a free hand to hunt for submarines.

Everyone wants "the best of the best," but the "best" design is the one that most perfectly matches a nation's needs, not necessarily the one that crams the most weapons and sensors in a single platform and costs many billions per ship.

Fair point. Well, I'm no expert in navy or ships. I do know having a navy is necessary for any countries bordering the seas. And in addition certain nations who're ambitious enough to exert its influence in the world, my NS nations fall in the latter. Even though I based my IC nation from China but the PLA wasn’t known for great navy with the level of U.S. or any Western European powers. Even Russia, which was primarily a land power, has better warships than the Chinese (the latter tends to be outdated or underequipped to keep up with modern demands). I simply want to have a very capable navy (but not too big) to compete against the likes of U.S. Navy on world stage. In other words, if I can’t have warships as numerous as the U.S., I should make it up with better warships. At least ideally.

Back to the topic, I’m being rather choosy on which frigate I should better use:

1. Formidable-Class

2. Type-23

3. La Fayette

If not of the above, did you have any suggestions?

[The Soodean Imperium]

If you actually look at the reasons why such ships are classified as such in their given navies, it does illuminate some questions in this case. European nations classify their ships based on role and the US Navy used to use a similar system until it reclassified ships according to broader capabilities (which unsurprisingly tend to correlate with displacement). This second method is often taken as the default on NS because it is very easily understood and most players are more familiar with the USN than they are with European navies (which is the same reason why USN-style hull classification symbols predominate rather than European pennant numbers).

And then there's the more literal Soviet classification system, by the 1960s had developed into categories like "Large ASW Ship," "[Anti-Ship] Missile Cruiser," "Small ASW Ship," "[Border] Guard Ship," etc.

Although the Sovremennys retained the pre-war EM designation for destroyers, and were somewhat redundant with the Udaloy II even though the latter was technically a "Large ASW Ship" descended from the Kara.

[Free Equatorial Nations]

Free Equatorial Nations is in need of a navy. All we've got is an old pirate ship we restored as a museum, and the old dictator's yacht

[The Selkie]

Free Equatorial Nations is in need of a navy. All we've got is an old pirate ship we restored as a museum, and the old dictator's yacht

So... standard set of questions: Where are you and how much water is around you? Do you need your navy to secure your own waters or do you want to go expeditionary? Who is your biggest threat and how large is his navy?
(Which techlevel are you in case you aren't MT?)

[The Akasha Colony]

I simply want to have a very capable navy (but not too big) to compete against the likes of U.S. Navy on world stage. In other words, if I can’t have warships as numerous as the U.S., I should make it up with better warships. At least ideally.

It rarely ends up working that way. The primary considerations are that the ships must be capable enough to perform their duties and numerous enough to fill all available requirements. As mentioned previously, if you need to escort, say, six aircraft carriers, it does you no good to design a ship so expensive you can only build two, even if that ship is extremely capable. You've left four of your carriers unprotected in the process, and thus the design itself is a failure even if it's the best air-defense ship in the world, as it does not meet your nation's availability requirements. "Better" isn't free; if the US Navy has ten ships and you can build only eight ships of the same type or five of a better one, choosing the latter means that you've exacerbated the numeric difference. This may or may not be worth it, depending on your requirements.

Back to the topic, I’m being rather choosy on which frigate I should better use:

1. Formidable-Class

2. Type-23

3. La Fayette

If not of the above, did you have any suggestions?

All three are very different and have very different roles.

La Fayette is a light general purpose frigate for humanitarian work, EEZ patrol, anti-piracy roles, and show-the-flag missions in France's outlying territories. It isn't designed for any serious combat and this can be seen in its very light armament and comparatively small size. But this is fine for France, because it has much larger, more capable destroyers to call on to escort its carrier or fight in contested areas.

The larger Formidable-class variant is more capable because it is Singapore's primary surface combatant, and is thus expected to handle air, surface, and anti-submarine warfare on behalf of the RSN. There are no larger ships to delegate these roles to. This is why it has more capable sensors, a torpedo armament, and a VLS installation for SAMs. But this unsurprisingly pushes the cost upward.

The Type 23 is primarily an anti-submarine warfare ship that later received more capable air defenses based on British experiences in the Falklands. It now has basic point air defense that is better than La Fayette's nonexistent air defense capability but less capable than Formidable's Aster 15s. But its primary role is ASW, which is why it carries the Sonar 2087 towed array and can operate the large and very capable Merlin HM1 helicopter. Air defense is left to the Type 45 destroyers. The Type 26 frigate is expected to replace the Type 23 in this role while including expanded humanitarian and flexible support space.

[Asgeirria]

Guys, gib me your opinion on this idea: gutting a supertanker, slapping on some laser PD, ciws, SAMs, anti-missile missiles, and then just filling it with missile tubes and missiles? Could such a ship overwhelm the defense of an enemy fleet? How about two or three? Thoughts?

[Auroya]

One ship vs. a fleet is invariably a losing battle unless you're talking about the USS Nimitz vs. a WWII navy.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Guys, gib me your opinion on this idea: gutting a supertanker, slapping on some laser PD, ciws, SAMs, anti-missile missiles, and then just filling it with missile tubes and missiles? Could such a ship overwhelm the defense of an enemy fleet? How about two or three? Thoughts?

You still need aviation assets to detect your targets and provide targeting data for this ship, unless ofc you want to conduct all your fighting at 37 times less than everybody else who's sitting out at 600 nautical miles with their long-range strike assets and just pummelling you where you can't do jackshit about it.

[Pharthan]

Guys, gib me your opinion on this idea: gutting a supertanker, slapping on some laser PD, ciws, SAMs, anti-missile missiles, and then just filling it with missile tubes and missiles? Could such a ship overwhelm the defense of an enemy fleet? How about two or three? Thoughts?

Provided:
1) No one knows your supertanker is converted and cannot tell by looking at it. And for some reason doesn't think the considerably larger-than-average radar for a supertanker to be odd.
2) Every last enemy you're shooting at is within visual range. Which is unlikely.

A surprise-attack ship like this could possibly work, but I'd want it to be drone-controlled, honestly, seeing as it's going to be pretty much destroyed after it launches the first volley - which is hopefully just about every missile you've got.

[The Kievan People]

Guys, gib me your opinion on this idea: gutting a supertanker, slapping on some laser PD, ciws, SAMs, anti-missile missiles, and then just filling it with missile tubes and missiles? Could such a ship overwhelm the defense of an enemy fleet? How about two or three? Thoughts?

Torpedoed by a sub.

[Triplebaconation]

Guys, gib me your opinion on this idea: gutting a supertanker, slapping on some laser PD, ciws, SAMs, anti-missile missiles, and then just filling it with missile tubes and missiles? Could such a ship overwhelm the defense of an enemy fleet? How about two or three? Thoughts?

This was one of the SC-21 concepts. The main drawback is that it's incredibly dorky looking.

[United States of PA]

If you actually look at the reasons why such ships are classified as such in their given navies, it does illuminate some questions in this case. European nations classify their ships based on role and the US Navy used to use a similar system until it reclassified ships according to broader capabilities (which unsurprisingly tend to correlate with displacement). This second method is often taken as the default on NS because it is very easily understood and most players are more familiar with the USN than they are with European navies (which is the same reason why USN-style hull classification symbols predominate rather than European pennant numbers).

In this case, it is rather clear that the latter is the case with Theodosiya's proposal, as it appears to encompass multi-role, air-defense, and anti-submarine ships alike. Therefore, it does not appear to be based on role, because every role is present. If it were based on size, then one could make the argument that large frigates do exist, but these tend to only serve in navies that do not operate "destroyers" at all. Theodosiya has both destroyers and cruisers, both presumably larger and more capable than its frigates. The proposed linear progression in gun caliber and quantity supports this relationship.

I'm not going to dispute this. Seems like your saying basically what i tried.

Which begs the question as to what exactly these larger classifications are supposed to do if the frigates are already so large and capable? At 6,500 tons, they're too big and expensive to be built in the large numbers necessary to handle traditional frigate escort duties, as they already approach the capabilities (and costs) offered by modern multi-roles like Arleigh Burke.

This would be like operating Arleigh Burke alongside Álvaro de Bazán. There isn't much point because the latter is almost as capable and expensive as the former, duplicating their capabilities. But this leaves the role that would be filled by a cheaper frigate like Oliver Hazard Perry vacant. Álvaro de Bazán would be too expensive to build in the same quantity as a fleet of Perrys, leaving the fleet short on light escorts while having heavier escorts that unnecessarily duplicate each others' roles.

Alvaro de Bazan has a quoted cost of $600mn for the first four ships, with the fifth being $1.1bn. Hobart rounds out to about $2.3bn per ship off of Wiki's statement for its original contract (for 3 ships) though it also says that the program is over budget, Hobart alone by $870mn. Wiki also quotes DDG-114-116 at $1.8bn and change, don't think we can argue which one is "more capable", especially for the stated costs, though without a doubt a lot of Burke's comparative cheapness comes from its simply massive production run of being the most numerous vessel class in the USN since Perry, and before it Gearing i believe (major surface combatants that is).

Now, i didn't see a build price for the Perry on wiki when i was looking, but i did find this memo from 1979 quoting the 52 ship FFG-7 program at $10.1bn, or $194mn per ship, in the late 70s. Adjusted for inflation, a new build Perry class, in its original capability would cost approximately $640mn, or the price of Alvaro de Bazan roughly. If you can find a more reliable source on the build price of FFG-7, please do. I do remember also seeing a article while searching for that stating that the USN was looking at selling used FFG-7s to Taiwan i think, for about $225mn per ship that had approx. 20 years of service left in them, but i didnt think to save the link.

Using those numbers however, that means that the first four Alvaro class ships are the modern replacement (cost wise) for the FFG-7. While it is true that Alvaro/Hobart is quite capable, it still only has about half the Armament of Arleigh Burke, depending on the Flight. Even then, they are still better armed than Germany's Sachsen class "Air Defense frigate", with 48 Mk.41 compared to 32 cells. Considering how Alvaro is indeed intended to fill a similar role to Burke, just at a smaller size/lower capability, yes you would not need to operate them side by side unless you wanted to use Burke in the old Destroyer Leader role.

Also, F125 is listed on wiki as costing ~$723mn for a 7,200 tonne "frigate", so i disagree that a 6,500 tonne frigate would be so unduly expensive, when a new build FFG-7 like you proposed cost's a similar amount to existing 7,000 tonne range frigates. Unless you mean ships like a modern Knox class, which cost approx. $31mn per ship in 1974, or $150mn in todays money.

[Aznazia]

I read a book by Jeff Head called Dragon's Fury where the PLAN takes cargo ships and turns them into tactical strike ships that launch a surprise attack on the US. Here is a Sea Control ship that was also in the book.

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/PL ... oncept.jpg

I always take these designs with a grain of salt since they are not designed for survivability like modern combat ships are. They are possible but they would not be good if you need to move fast. However the Russians also seem to be interested in the idea of turning cargo ships into secret strike ships by creating missile launchers disguised as shipping containers.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/upload ... -NASIC.jpg

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/club-k-c ... 146327.jpg

[Allanea]

Klub-K is not intended to use on any kind of mythical 'secret strike ships', or at least it's not marketed as such.

[The Akasha Colony]

Alvaro de Bazan has a quoted cost of $600mn for the first four ships, with the fifth being $1.1bn. Hobart rounds out to about $2.3bn per ship off of Wiki's statement for its original contract (for 3 ships) though it also says that the program is over budget, Hobart alone by $870mn. Wiki also quotes DDG-114-116 at $1.8bn and change, don't think we can argue which one is "more capable", especially for the stated costs, though without a doubt a lot of Burke's comparative cheapness comes from its simply massive production run of being the most numerous vessel class in the USN since Perry, and before it Gearing i believe (major surface combatants that is).

Now, i didn't see a build price for the Perry on wiki when i was looking, but i did find this memo from 1979 quoting the 52 ship FFG-7 program at $10.1bn, or $194mn per ship, in the late 70s. Adjusted for inflation, a new build Perry class, in its original capability would cost approximately $640mn, or the price of Alvaro de Bazan roughly. If you can find a more reliable source on the build price of FFG-7, please do. I do remember also seeing a article while searching for that stating that the USN was looking at selling used FFG-7s to Taiwan i think, for about $225mn per ship that had approx. 20 years of service left in them, but i didnt think to save the link.

Using those numbers however, that means that the first four Alvaro class ships are the modern replacement (cost wise) for the FFG-7. While it is true that Alvaro/Hobart is quite capable, it still only has about half the Armament of Arleigh Burke, depending on the Flight. Even then, they are still better armed than Germany's Sachsen class "Air Defense frigate", with 48 Mk.41 compared to 32 cells. Considering how Alvaro is indeed intended to fill a similar role to Burke, just at a smaller size/lower capability, yes you would not need to operate them side by side unless you wanted to use Burke in the old Destroyer Leader role.

Also, F125 is listed on wiki as costing ~$723mn for a 7,200 tonne "frigate", so i disagree that a 6,500 tonne frigate would be so unduly expensive, when a new build FFG-7 like you proposed cost's a similar amount to existing 7,000 tonne range frigates. Unless you mean ships like a modern Knox class, which cost approx. $31mn per ship in 1974, or $150mn in todays money.

Comparisons across decades and between nations are of dubious utility due to the huge number of factors involved in determining contracting agreements and the fact that generally large orders are placed piecemeal, meaning costs can vary even between members of the same type ordered in different years. This is exactly why I cited no cost data in my post. Ceteris paribus, in a purely abstract sense, a more capable ship will be more expensive than a less capable one. There may be compounding factors involved such as politicking or contractual issues that could push the cost of a less capable warship higher than a more capable one with a less complicated procurement process, but that can't really be spoken to. Citing IRL examples would not be all that useful because no analogous examples really exist.

Considering capability by comparing VLS count is also rather specious, though. A VLS is ultimately just a box with some ducting and a few electronic interfaces, it's not expensive and is not really the determining factor in capability. Based purely on VLS count, Zumwalt is clearly inferior to Arleigh Burke, but that ignores the significant improvements in Zumwalt's combat suite over that of Burke. In this regard, Sachsen is actually more capable than Álvaro de Bazán as it has a newer and better electronics outfit even though it has fewer VLS cells.

[Rich and Corporations]

Comparisons across decades and between nations are of dubious utility due to the huge number of factors involved in determining contracting agreements and the fact that generally large orders are placed piecemeal, meaning costs can vary even between members of the same type ordered in different years. This is exactly why I cited no cost data in my post. Ceteris paribus, in a purely abstract sense, a more capable ship will be more expensive than a less capable one. There may be compounding factors involved such as politicking or contractual issues that could push the cost of a less capable warship higher than a more capable one with a less complicated procurement process, but that can't really be spoken to. Citing IRL examples would not be all that useful because no analogous examples really exist.

Considering capability by comparing VLS count is also rather specious, though. A VLS is ultimately just a box with some ducting and a few electronic interfaces, it's not expensive and is not really the determining factor in capability. Based purely on VLS count, Zumwalt is clearly inferior to Arleigh Burke, but that ignores the significant improvements in Zumwalt's combat suite over that of Burke. In this regard, Sachsen is actually more capable than Álvaro de Bazán as it has a newer and better electronics outfit even though it has fewer VLS cells.

A lot simpler to point out that the most capable ship by his metric is... a missile barge.

[Minroz]

It rarely ends up working that way. The primary considerations are that the ships must be capable enough to perform their duties and numerous enough to fill all available requirements. As mentioned previously, if you need to escort, say, six aircraft carriers, it does you no good to design a ship so expensive you can only build two, even if that ship is extremely capable. You've left four of your carriers unprotected in the process, and thus the design itself is a failure even if it's the best air-defense ship in the world, as it does not meet your nation's availability requirements. "Better" isn't free; if the US Navy has ten ships and you can build only eight ships of the same type or five of a better one, choosing the latter means that you've exacerbated the numeric difference. This may or may not be worth it, depending on your requirements.

Noted.

All three are very different and have very different roles.

La Fayette is a light general purpose frigate for humanitarian work, EEZ patrol, anti-piracy roles, and show-the-flag missions in France's outlying territories. It isn't designed for any serious combat and this can be seen in its very light armament and comparatively small size. But this is fine for France, because it has much larger, more capable destroyers to call on to escort its carrier or fight in contested areas.

The larger Formidable-class variant is more capable because it is Singapore's primary surface combatant, and is thus expected to handle air, surface, and anti-submarine warfare on behalf of the RSN. There are no larger ships to delegate these roles to. This is why it has more capable sensors, a torpedo armament, and a VLS installation for SAMs. But this unsurprisingly pushes the cost upward.

The Type 23 is primarily an anti-submarine warfare ship that later received more capable air defenses based on British experiences in the Falklands. It now has basic point air defense that is better than La Fayette's nonexistent air defense capability but less capable than Formidable's Aster 15s. But its primary role is ASW, which is why it carries the Sonar 2087 towed array and can operate the large and very capable Merlin HM1 helicopter. Air defense is left to the Type 45 destroyers. The Type 26 frigate is expected to replace the Type 23 in this role while including expanded humanitarian and flexible support space.

By the looks of it, I'm thinking of choosing Formidable-class out of the three as my premier frigates. Even though it's going to be costly. Guess better to choose Formidable over Admiral-Gorshkov for utilitarian reasons.

In the end, it's always about budgets, ain't it.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Paper-project for a "maximum cruiser" which my predecessor regime designed but never built.

TL;DR people in our region agreed to an interwar naval treaty allows 15,000-tonne cruisers, so I fiddled around aimlessly in SpringSharp for a few hours and gradually realized that 15,000 tonnes is A LOT to work with depending on where you put your priorities.



Under the terms of the 1923 New Batavia Naval Limitation Treaty, "Heavy Cruiser" was defined as a surface combatant displacing between 8,000 and 15,000 tonnes standard displacement, and construction of these ships was frozen until 1929. Beginning in 1925, the Menghe Federal Republic held a series of design competitions to design the "optimal" 15,000-tonne cruiser - competitions which continued in 1927 when General Ourei Enzin seized power in a military coup.

One of the most famous designs to come out of this competition was the "IMS Taissang." It was the work of a design team led by Commodore Kapsung Suchang, who had already won fame as the chief designer of the Cheng-Emil class battlecruiser. Unlike previous entrants to the competition, who had generally preferred small "pocket battleships," Kapsung's team produced a well-rounded cruiser design, which was primarily intended to engage the hypothetical "maximum cruisers" which other treaty signatories might produce. At slightly over 31 knots, its speed was modest, though still not slow by interwar standards. In terms of armor and armament, however, it would have far surpassed any other treaty cruiser in the region, putting it on par with some pre-war battlecruisers.

In the end, this proved to be its undoing. After the planned armor and armament of other signatories' planned cruisers were published in early 1929, Navy High Command realized that the Taissang-class far outstripped the potential task ahead of it. Kapsung's team produced a series of modified designs, but in the end the contract was awarded to a smaller design team under Commander Lin Ginjidol. Lin's proposal resembled a smaller version of the Taissang, with 4x2 200mm guns and 150mm belt armor - still enough to outfight other nations' cruiser classes, but with a standard displacement of 12,500 tonnes, allowing six rather than five to be built with Menghe's treaty tonnage allocation.

Dimensions:
Displacement: 14,990 tonnes standard, 18,930 tonnes full
Length: 205.7 meters waterline, 212.2 meters overall
Beam: 22.4 meters
Draft: 7.88 meters (normal load)

Armament:
4x2 250mm (9.8 inch) L/50 guns in two-gun turrets
5x1 100mm (3.9 inch) L/50 guns in single High-Angle (AA) mounts
8x2 12.5mm (0.49 inch) water-cooled anti-aircraft machine guns
3 reconnaissance floatplanes

Protection:
Main belt, turret faces, barbettes, and conning tower: 200 mm (7.9 inches)
Deck and turret sides: 75 mm (2.95 inches)
Internal Torpedo Bulkhead: 20 mm (0.79 inches)

Propulsion:
8x oil-fueled water-tube boiler
4x steam turbine (88,000 shaft horsepower total) driving four propeller shafts
Top speed: 31.2 knots (calculated estimate)
Range: 7800 nautical miles at 18 knots