Is their any good reference to the cost of ships today and the cost of a full war ship of the line in the age of sail.

Say for example the cost of a destroyer today is XXXXXXXXX pounds for the Royal Navy and a Ship of the line in the 1830s was XXXXXXXX pounds. Is there anyway to see what the relative cost of a ship of the line was?


(I know very little about ships .... so the numbers here are all hypothetical)
Okay say for example a ship of the line has 100 men in the 1830s
and a destroyer has 1,000 men.

After the conversion cost does a destroyer cost 10 times more?


So I guess the actual question I am trying to ask here is
Pound for pound after factoring in conversion rates and budgets (seeing as how the Royal Navy received way more money in say 1812 as % of the country's budgets)

Did it cost more money to put a competent sailor (percentage wise as part of a navy's budget) in a very good ship in 1812 than it does today?


Sorry if I had to reiterate and if it was confusing I am just trying to understand all of this and want the question to be very clear.

I am trying to get a head start on my creative writing class next semester and getting help from people who have taken it from that teacher before. I am working on a awesome 30 page story set in a world that is some what like the age of sail world :D

According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hms_victory) wikipedia article, HMS victory launched in 1765 cost £63,176 equivalent to £50 Million today.

As a modern day comparison the new type 45 destroyers cost around £500 Million each and the new Queen Elizebeth class aircraft carriers will cost around £2 Billion each

I think age of sail ships had comparatively much larger crews.

According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hms_victory) wikipedia article, HMS victory launched in 1765 cost £63,176 equivalent to £50 Million today.

As a modern day comparison the new type 45 destroyers cost around £500 Million each and the new Queen Elizebeth class aircraft carriers will cost around £2 Billion each

:goodjob:
Good lookin out!

The technology involved in modern warships is not comparable to 18th Century warships. I have no doubt that modern signal flags are about the same relative cost as Napoleonic era signal flags*. But radio, with all its associated gear (including extremely expensive cryptographic equipment**), has no equivalent on HMS Victory.

* The signal flags used today are a modification of a signaling system introduced into the Royal Navy in 1803 by an officer who rejoiced in the name of Home Popham.

** After John Walker compromised the U.S. Navy's KW7 and KY8 crypto systems, it was estimated that developing and building replacements cost over $5 billion (in 1975 dollars).

(I know very little about ships .... so the numbers here are all hypothetical)
Okay say for example a ship of the line has 100 men in the 1830s
and a destroyer has 1,000 men.

The numbers should be reversed.

A Napoleonic era ship of the line (74 guns or more) would have a crew of 800 or more men. A modern day U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer or British Type 42 destroyer has a crew of about 325.

The numbers should be reversed.

A Napoleonic era ship of the line (74 guns or more) would have a crew of 800 or more men. A modern day U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer or British Type 42 destroyer has a crew of about 325.

hmmm *strokes chin*
Thanks! :goodjob:

Well crew training costs were lower since during the Napoleonic wars some sailors were pressed into service and orphans were occasionally given to the navy and raised as cabin boys.

http://www.online-literature.com/tennyson/726/

A crew of close to 200 for the little Revenge, and over 1,000 for the Spanish sea-castles.

According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hms_victory) wikipedia article, HMS victory launched in 1765 cost £63,176 equivalent to £50 Million today.

As a modern day comparison the new type 45 destroyers cost around £500 Million each and the new Queen Elizebeth class aircraft carriers will cost around £2 Billion each

Yeah, but compare the British economy of back then, to now.

Surely the actual cost of the ship is not the only issue here - but also how many resources were available to the country at the time, as well.

It looks like the ships didn't take that many resources compared to their modern day equivalents, and the percentage might be lower. The ship itself would be a huge investment, but the return investment often lasted up to a century. Outside of the initial construction labour was pretty cheap, repair could be done relatively simply, and food was rather cheap. The only expense that really depends on the make and model would be the actual weapons.

I’m reading The British Seaborne Empire by Jeremy Black and The Rise and Fall of the British Empire by Lawrence James for school. I was surprised to learn that wooden ships had a service life of only about 20 years, due to wood rot and other wear and tear. Ships were also made obsolete by improvements in construction. In addition warships were lost in great number due to weather, accident, combat and occasionally mutiny. As an example, “out of the 317 warships lost in 1803-1815, 223 were wrecked or foundered.” This at a time when the entire British Fleet was about 450 ships on active duty.

I believe by this time the navy was all copper hulled and equipped to determine longitude at sea so casualties from accident and weather must have been even higher in previous decades.

In any case maintaining naval superiority was a serious financial commitment for England.

Some of the grander ships had longer lifespans as they were - as today - recycled from main combat roles to cerimonal/ training/ hulk roles, or recycled to theaters where they would not face whatever it was that had superceded them.

I've just read "The Republic of pirates" by Colin Woodward. This is a great book (well worth a read), and one of it's greatest features is a list of prices at the beginning of the 18th century.

According to the list, a frigate of 350 tons with 36 guns, fully fitted cost 8200 pounds. That's a small frigate by the way. The biggest were apparently 1800 tons with 100 guns (not sure about this actually). Now compare this with the wage of a shopkeeper in England of 45 pounds per year. This would be middle class I'd say. So that's more than 180 middle class wages for a warship. If a typical income now is $50.000, the equivalent cost of a warship would be $9 million.

You've got to account for the technological difference if you want an apples to apples comparison

You've got to account for the technological difference if you want an apples to apples comparison

A warship now is high-tech, and a warship then was high-tech then. Anyway, I think it's kind of hard to compare over such a large amount of time...

In the age of Sail the admiralty was in control.

Nowadays the arms companies have got lobbying
and bribing the politicians down to a very fine art.

This is the primary reason why fully equipped fighting
ships cost 10-100 times as much today as 200 years ago.

I think the real question is how much they cost compared to the BNP and the yearly state budget. I think todays ships cost less % of BNP than they did for 200/100 years ago.

I think the real question is how much they cost compared to the BNP and the yearly state budget. I think todays ships cost less % of BNP than they did for 200/100 years ago.

Yeah more or less. My goal is to figure out how many fully capable ships they could put on the water then and now when in full war mode. Though it is very hard to compare because we have so many types of ships now..... do you count the cost of an aircraft carriers plane? What about the yearly cost of fuel?
And disposal of fuel ? (like in a nuclear powered sub)

.... I think I have a rough idea now though.
:)

I think the real question is how much they cost compared to the BNP and the yearly state budget. I think todays ships cost less % of BNP than they did for 200/100 years ago.

Yeah, that's what I figured. But I didn't have GDP data, so I went with middle-class income.

A modern day U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer or British Type 42 destroyer has a crew of about 325.

225, usually less in practice though.

The cost of 1st rate ship-of-the-line should be compared to a modern day aircraft carrier. They are the ultimate fighting ships of their day.

A 5th rate frigate is comparable to a destroyer.

Hardly, unless you think the RN was maintaining the equivalent of 50-60 aircraft carriers for a few centuries.

Hardly, unless you think the RN was maintaining the equivalent of 50-60 aircraft carriers for a few centuries.

The 1st rate was the ultimate fighting ship 1714-1860. The aircraft carrier is the ultimate fighting ship 1941-2008.

What is wrong in this comparison?

The 1st rate was the ultimate fighting ship 1714-1860. The aircraft carrier is the ultimate fighting ship 1941-2008.

What is wrong in this comparison?

That a carrier is proportunately far more expensive.

That a carrier is proportunately far more expensive.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.

In main fleet actions in WW2 (take midway) you had a handfull of carriers on both sides. In a main fleet actions in the 19th century (take trafalgar) you had a dozen 1st rates on both sides.
I think thats what he meant anyway, my knowledge of naval battles is ~ nil.

In main fleet actions in WW2 (take midway) you had a handfull of carriers on both sides. In a main fleet actions in the 19th century (take trafalgar) you had a dozen 1st rates on both sides.
I think thats what he meant anyway, my knowledge of naval battles is ~ nil.

There were only 3 British 1st rates at Trafalgar out of 24 ships-of-the-line.

The French had 0 1st rates out of 18 sol. The Spanish 4 1st rates out of 14 sol.

In peacetime there was usually only one 1st rate in service. They were far too expensive to maintain. Compare that to the number of US carriers active in peace time. It appears carriers are cheaper to maintain than 1st rates!

There were only 3 British 1st rates at Trafalgar out of 24 ships-of-the-line.

The French had 0 1st rates out of 18 sol. The Spanish 4 1st rates out of 14 sol.

In peacetime there was usually only one 1st rate in service. They were far too expensive to maintain. Compare that to the number of US carriers active in peace time. It appears carriers are cheaper to maintain than 1st rates!

How much more expensive was a first rate? 20%? A carrier costs half a dozen times what a destroyer does.

The US is also funding those carriers with a population of 300 million.

Is anybody familiar with "The Cash Nexus" by Naill Furgeson? Its a collection of boring essays but I think he covers this topic.

How much more expensive was a first rate? 20%? A carrier costs half a dozen times what a destroyer does.

The Caledonia of 1808, a 1st rate of 120 guns, cost £103,000 while the Leonidas of 1807, an 18pdr 38 gun 5th rate (the 'destroyer' of its day?), cost ₤36,129.

Throw in the small population of Britain at that time and the minimal taxes and the Caledonia may have cost more to build than a Nimitz class carrier.

Annual expenditure on the navy in 1808 was around £21.5 million.

Can anyone tell me what percentage the Caledonia was of that figure?

I am useless with numbers.

Yeah more or less. My goal is to figure out how many fully capable ships they could put on the water then and now when in full war mode. Though it is very hard to compare because we have so many types of ships now..... do you count the cost of an aircraft carriers plane? What about the yearly cost of fuel?
And disposal of fuel ? (like in a nuclear powered sub)

.... I think I have a rough idea now though.
:)


That would be a bit hard to do; because we know what the RN could maintain in a full war footing in the Age of Sail. We don't know what a modern economy could maintain because it hasn't been done since 1945.


You can analyse this to the nth degree but comparing prices from different epochs is practically impossible to do in any meaningful way. The best you could do would be to express cost as a % of GDP, but that is only as good as your value for GDP which in a more primitive partially subsistence economy is not easy.

The short version is to say "navies are high tech and very expensive whatever era you are in"

I could care less if we drill in ANWR. Because it's not going to affect the price at the pump. The oil companies are not drilling on the territory already open to them, so why should we be rusing into giving them more territory?

A fifth rate was NOT the destroyer of the day. More like a frigate or a corvette. A modern DDG is basically one step below a carrier with CGs and DDGs being basically the same armament wise for all intents and purposes in the USN. You can build three DDGs for the price of one Nimitz.

A first rate cost marginally more than the next most power class, carriers multiple times the cost of the next most potent combatant.

A fifth rate was NOT the destroyer of the day. More like a frigate or a corvette. A modern DDG is basically one step below a carrier with CGs and DDGs being basically the same armament wise for all intents and purposes in the USN. You can build three DDGs for the price of one Nimitz.

A first rate cost marginally more than the next most power class, carriers multiple times the cost of the next most potent combatant.

Well, the 5th rate 38 could fight any ship in battle - other than a ship of the line. The DDG can fight any ship - other than an aircraft carrier. If you look at their role they seem very much alike.

Once again, and not to belabor the point, I was comparing a First Rate to an aircraft carrier because both are the ultimate warships of their day. A Second or Third rate, was just as good in the line of battle, but the First rate was the biggest and most expensive ship a powerful navy had - just like a US carrier today.

A couple of good books regarding this period are:

Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation 1795-1815. By Brian Lavery.

It explains the rating system (and their roles) of the ships of Nelson's navy, and just about everything else!

British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817, by Rif Winfield.

This book covers the cost, design, career and fate of warships in this period.

Well, the 5th rate 38 could fight any ship in battle - other than a ship of the line. The DDG can fight any ship - other than an aircraft carrier. If you look at their role they seem very much alike.

Once again, and not to belabor the point, I was comparing a First Rate to an aircraft carrier because both are the ultimate warships of their day. A Second or Third rate, was just as good in the line of battle, but the First rate was the biggest and most expensive ship a powerful navy had - just like a US carrier today.

A couple of good books regarding this period are:

Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation 1795-1815. By Brian Lavery.

It explains the rating system (and their roles) of the ships of Nelson's navy, and just about everything else!

British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817, by Rif Winfield.

This book covers the cost, design, career and fate of warships in this period.

I am going to see if I can find this at the library when I am back at uni next month. Good lookin out :)

I am going to see if I can find this at the library when I am back at uni next month. Good lookin out :)

You might find these websites interesting.

http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html

http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/index.html

http://www.sailingwarships.com/

Good luck next semester. :)

Wow Trafalgar, those are great links. I'm supprised at the service lives of those ships, with refits some hulls could evidently be kept in service for 80 years!