Warships definitions (1): frigates and destroyers

One of the issues I've spent a long time worrying over in the past is how we define our warships. This becomes an issue for balance, as the strength of navies is largely set in "Invasion", but in some cases there is little consistency in what even canon calls a "frigate" or "cruiser".

Taking "frigate" as an example, canon (and semi-canon) gives the following "frigates":

Piedabuena (Argentine) - 10 MW MHD (8,000 tons fuel), ~ 2,150 tons, 56 crew
Ipiranga (Brazilian, obsolete) - 7 MW MHD (1,400 tons fuel), ~ 1,600 tons, 12 crew (actually more as per the ship status sheet)
Aconit (French) - 7 MW MHD (1,400 tons fuel), ~ 1,200 tons, 34 crew
Tunghu (Manchu) - 4 MW MHD (800 tons fuel), ~ 600 tons, 32 crew
Sachsen (German) - 25 MW fission, ~ 2,600 tons, not stated (baseline requirement for engineering and combat systems is 64 crew)
Orage (French) - 5 MW fission, ~ 950 tons, 40 crew
Ypres-12 (French) - 150 MW fusion, ~ 12,500 tons, 100 crew
Exeter* (British) - 5 MW MHD (500 tons), ~ 900 tons, 16 crew (not enough even to man engineering and flight systems)
Hampton (American) - 15 MW MHD (3,000 tons), ~ 1,000 tons, 26 crew (used etranger version)
Cayuga (American) - 25MW MHD (2,000 tons, two plants), ~ 1,300 tons, 32 crew
Killiecrankie (British) - 25 MW fission, ~ 2,650 tons, 76 crew
Retief (American) - 20 MW MHD (902 tons, very short legs), ~ 500 tons, 19 crew (deliberately not a full crew)

* Called an SDB, but a frigate size vessel

Now the most obvious outlier is the Ypres-12. Her drive systems, mass, crew etc. are that of a completely different order of vessel putting her in the size class of a Kennedy or Hamburg. However, the French probably do call her a "frégate" as it fits the French notion of a frigate, which is different from the Anglo-Saxon meaning. However the reason for the naming is probably that the USN originally called it's missile cruisers (including the Ticonderoga) "frigates" reflecting the pre-1900 use of the phrase rather than the RN revival of the term for larger anti-submarine ships ca. 1940 (they also revived sloop, but that didn't stick). Ypres-12 just isn't a frigate.

Of the remainder the Sachsen and Killiecrankie are again massive compared to the others with about twice the typical "frigate" crew, a fact of their fission plants. Lets compare them to canon "destroyers":

Almirante Brown (Argentine, obsolete): 15 MW fission, ~ 4,000 tons, 40 crew (not fully NAM)
Espirito Santo (Brazilian, obsolete): 20 MW MHD (12,000 tons), ~ 4,100 tons, 40 crew
Chien-Lung (Manchu): 15 MW MHD (9,000 tons fuel), ~ 1,950 tons, 51 crew
Kiev (Ukrainian, ex-French): 50 MW fission, ~ 5,500 tons, 72 crew
Bunker Hill (American): 75 MW MHD (11,250 tons fuel), ~ 5,500 tons, 160 crew (due to ability to carry 100 marines) (of more dubious canonicity)

It's clear that the big Killiecrankie/ Saschen are larger and more capable than the Adm. Brown, Esp. Santo and C-L, with more power and bigger crews (the high mass of the first two is because Adm Brown is a non-NAM design that can't be made that badly in NAM and deserves a redesign, and the latter is simply having to push a huge gas tank, the volume of a Kennedy in fuel). By this measure they are "destroyers", by a long way.

Let us look at the non-canon French "destroyers" in the etranger site (by Laurent mainly, my original Paris was a slightly different beast):

Patrie/ Soldat: 35 MW fission, ~ 3,500 tons, 55 crew
Arcturus: 25 MW fission, ~ 3,000 tons, 55 crew
Marechel: 50 MW fission, ~ 6,000 tons, 73 crew
Paris: 50 MW fission, ~ 5,200 tons, 100 crew

The French, if they were sticking with classical namings, would call these frégates in their own naming schemes. I opted to call them "chasseurs" to reflect the fact that these are truly "cruisers". These new ships are interesting. The Marechel and Paris are large, capable cruising ships. The Patrie, Soldat and Arcturus are in the same class as the Killiecrankies and Saschens. There is a reason for this, they represent the minimum effective warship.

A combat starship needs to fulfil a number of functions, obviously it has to move (hence needs a stutterwarp and some power) and it must be capable of self-defense and offense. However, unless used as nothing more than an orbit based interceptor then it must be capable of sustaining movement for extended periods of time and the crew must find it habitable. This means spin gravity (something Saschen doesn't have, nor large quarters on backengineering, thus it should gave a -2 CQ penalty). The fuel is less of a problem as starships can deploy solar panels in system and "sail" for free. However to be capable of self-defense and offense the ship needs to have a certain level of combat systems, and this requires a certain size of hull and powerplant.

For any actual starship (as opposed to planet based interceptor) a fission plant is by far more mass efficient. The mass of turbine and 2 weeks fuel for the Aconit masses the same as a 25 MW fission plant, and this actually saves volume (1,500 m3 for the nuke plant vs 3,400 m3 for the turbine and fuel). The only issue is the engineering crew, but Aconit already has an oversized engineering crew (12 instead of 6, meaning she should have 3 full DC teams, not 2, plus spare bridge crew etc.), a 25 MW fission plant would require 10 extra berths (22), but a 15 MW fission plant only requires 12 (if you follow the Kennedy example regarding rounding up or down). A 15 MW fission plant actually fits better. So, a better Aconit will be covered in the next post.