Crown of Swords and Frigates

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:49:00 -0500, Jeffrey MacHott
<Raguleader.TakeThisOut@netzero.net> wrote:

>Offbreed wrote:
>> forkliftramp.com wrote:
>>
>>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>>> or surface.
>>
>> I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
>> new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.
>
>"Frigate" as we now use it only goes back to about WWII. At various
>points in history, Frigates could also be equivilant to cruisers or
>battleships, depending on the definition. Apparantly the word "Frigate"
>goes back to an Old English word for "Boat".

No Italian "Fregatta"


And "Frigate" is not a dirty word in Bath Maine or San Pedro Ca (where
the OHP class was built)
pops
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On 28 Apr 2006 10:01:41 GMT, Paul <not.DeleteThis@home.com.au> wrote:


>
>Yeah, but modern fleet corvettes such as the Oliver Hazard Perry FFC's are
>not the slow tubs they were in WWII. I served on a OHP FFC during my short
>Royal Australian Navy career back in the early eighties. Those thing could
>really motor! They don't have that rakish "planing" bow for nothing.
>
>Twin 40,000hp gas turbine engines with variable pitch props. Smoooooth!
>
>Paul McC
>ABWTR RAN, Rtd

Good God we might have even known each other I was on the USS Sides
(FFG 14)

Do not forget with bow thrusters we could moor anywhere.

I was on an Adams class destroyer we did a 20 knot run with a bent
screw (the CO ran over a "camel" a float that bent one of our props)
nearly shook the ship apart with cavitation.

pops
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:47:29 GMT, Papatom <thomasb RemoveThis @uvic.ca>
allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:41:14 +0000 (UTC), quirk RemoveThis @swcp.com (Taki Kogoma)
>wrote:
>>The reason why most 'advanced' Honorverse space navies abandoned
>>Frigates in favor of destroyers is that a frigate requires almost the
>>same logistical requirements of a DD in terms of personnel and support
>>capacity, but with only 75% or so of the capability. If *all* you are
>>worried about is piracy suppression, then it may be practical to
>>build frigates, but given all the missions required of small hyper-
>>capable combatants, destroyers are a better all-around buy.
>
>I am sorry Modern Navies build their ships in this order of priority
>
>1. powerplant 2. Electronics 3. Weapons 4.Crew requirements
>
>think 50% of the weapons and 50% of the crew and the ability to
>operate independently.

Erm. Where is the crew savings for an Honorverse frigate? You have
essentially the same engineering/powerplant (one fusion bottle and
associated power distribution net in either case) and electronics
(unless you want to short-change the FF in EW, commo, and tac-comp
capability) personnel requirements. With the push for automation,
the gunnery crews are already down to 1-2 per mount plus maintenance
teams, so your crew savings are maybe 15-20 there...


--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Papatom wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:41:14 +0000 (UTC), quirk.RemoveThis@swcp.com (Taki Kogoma)
> wrote:
>
>
>> The sailing-era "frigate" was the equivalent of the turn-of-the-20th-
>> century cruiser. A Honorverse frigate strikes me as the equivalent of
>> a sailing era sixth-rate or 20-gun Post Ship (at a time when most navies
>> had moved to 5th rates or even 4th rates for screening units.)
>>
>> The development of destroyer-escorts, corvettes, frigates, etc. for
>> anti-submarine work is based on the need for as many sensor platforms
>> as possible as quickly as possible as economically as possible; crew
>> requirements weren't really an issue, unlike the bottleneck faced by
>> the RMN BuPers. Also, there is no corresponding "submarine" threat in
>> the Honorverse. (Relatively short-ranged, very powerful offensive
>> capability, extremely stealthy, generally immue to most 'conventional'
>> ttack modes.)
>>
>
> Actually the point of a Modern Frigate is to do a Destroyers job with
> as few people as possible and once again Screening and rescues is so
> important as well as point defense. Just imagine a sphere Thousands
> (millions) of Km in diameter one that a smart Admiral can coordinate.
>
> Heck I personally think DD's should be called FF's

Are we talking Honorverse DD's or US DD's? Cause I've heard some folks
say that the DD's as they are represented in the US navy tend to be more
like slightly smaller cruisers than destroyers in terms of capabilities
and duties.

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Marc Reeve wrote:

> Of course, the Japanese weren't the only ones screwing up by the
> numbers... the
> great unanswered wuestion being why the *hell* did Halsey take the
> entire US
> battle line (Task Force 34) to deal with the Japanese carriers??

I think I've heard it said that the victor of any given battle is he who
screws up the least.

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

You can also automate damage control, centralize engineering, reduce
reundant systems...Most Frigates are always in Condition 3 (Wartime
Steaming) go into "Port and Starboard" mode with all weapon stations
manned or the ship could go into a permanent condition 1 state and
have the crew rest AT THEIR ACTION STATIONS (It has been done before,
I have had the pleasure of racking out in the Mt 51 Gun house while
cruising in the Gulf)

Seriosly with some organization and automation manpower could be
reduced from say 300 to 150 or even 100.

The only good thing about the "small boys" is that the food is served
hot on the messdecks ( I used to hear Carrier sailors bitch that they
would just dump cold food on the steam tables)

Frigates are not meant to be in a main wall of battle....folks and one
pop gun is more than a freighter has, usually. Frigates are a cheap
way to do all the things that navies never have enough ships to do.
Boring stuff like scouting, cutoms enforcement, blockade, patrolling
the spacelanes, and CONVOY DUTY.

pops
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Papatom wrote:

> Frigates are not meant to be in a main wall of battle....folks and one
> pop gun is more than a freighter has, usually. Frigates are a cheap
> way to do all the things that navies never have enough ships to do.
> Boring stuff like scouting, cutoms enforcement, blockade, patrolling
> the spacelanes, and CONVOY DUTY.
>
> pops

I had a Naval History professor who described frigates in the US Navy
since the 80's as being intended for use as floating speed bumps to
maintain our sea lines of communication and supply in the event of an
all-out naval war. Cheaply built, easily mobilized quickly, capable of
dealing a decent amount of damage (especially if they are coordinating
with a more robust platform, such as an AEGIS cruiser or two.) Once you
have the main battle line mobilized and moved into theatre, the
asswhupping would commence with the frigates acting in a support role.
A force of frigates with a handful of AEGIS destroyers and cruisers and
a force of submarines would make a rather imposing force for most naval
commanders to deal with, and that's without the carrier battle groups
that would no doubt be rushing from wherever to jump into it.

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:46:49 GMT, Papatom <thomasb RemoveThis @uvic.ca>
allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>You can also automate damage control, centralize engineering, reduce
>reundant systems...Most Frigates are always in Condition 3 (Wartime
>Steaming) go into "Port and Starboard" mode with all weapon stations
>manned or the ship could go into a permanent condition 1 state and
>have the crew rest AT THEIR ACTION STATIONS (It has been done before,
>I have had the pleasure of racking out in the Mt 51 Gun house while
>cruising in the Gulf)
>
>Seriosly with some organization and automation manpower could be
>reduced from say 300 to 150 or even 100.

And these economies aren't arleady being done with *all* new combatants
built/refitted by the Manticoran Alliance?

The gap between *Honorverse* DDs and FFs is such that the personnel
economies do not necessarily offset the reduction in capability. What
the United States Navy has done is irrelevant.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

deowll wrote in message ...
>
>"Taki Kogoma" <quirk.DeleteThis@swcp.com> wrote in message
>news:e2qs7a$mm8$1@iruka.swcp.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:10:55 -0700, Offbreed <offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
>> allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>>>forkliftramp.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>>>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>>>> or surface.
>>>
>>>I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
>>>new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.
>>
>> "Torpedo boat destroyer"; they were meant as a small, agile platform
>> to screen the battle line from troepdo boats.
>>
>> One problem we're facing here is the evolution of names/missions of
>> naval units over the centuries, and MWW's decision to try to apply early
>> 20th C. nomenclature to what started as a quasi-Nelsonian paradigm
>> that itself is rapidly evolving. Another problem is trying to use
>> 'modern' ship types as one-to-one correspondance with what is in the
>> Honorverse; the distinction between "frigate", "destroyer", and
>> "cruiser" in the modern navy is getting increasingly muddled.
>>
>> The sailing-era "frigate" was the equivalent of the turn-of-the-20th-
>> century cruiser. A Honorverse frigate strikes me as the equivalent of
>> a sailing era sixth-rate or 20-gun Post Ship (at a time when most navies
>> had moved to 5th rates or even 4th rates for screening units.)
>>
>> The development of destroyer-escorts, corvettes, frigates, etc. for
>> anti-submarine work is based on the need for as many sensor platforms
>> as possible as quickly as possible as economically as possible; crew
>> requirements weren't really an issue, unlike the bottleneck faced by
>> the RMN BuPers. Also, there is no corresponding "submarine" threat in
>> the Honorverse. (Relatively short-ranged, very powerful offensive
>> capability, extremely stealthy, generally immue to most 'conventional'
>> ttack modes.)
>>
>> The anti-LAC and missile-defense missions have been discussed ad
>> nauseum and may or may not result in their own specialized units
>> analogous to modern air-defense platforms, but that's another mega-
>> thread.
>>
>> The reason why most 'advanced' Honorverse space navies abandoned
>> Frigates in favor of destroyers is that a frigate requires almost the
>> same logistical requirements of a DD in terms of personnel and support
>> capacity, but with only 75% or so of the capability. If *all* you are
>> worried about is piracy suppression, then it may be practical to
>> build frigates, but given all the missions required of small hyper-
>> capable combatants, destroyers are a better all-around buy.
>



>On the reverse side if you are only concerned about in system defense as
>seems to have beeen true of several very weak systems you might leave of
the
>hyper capible off a DD and make a frigite for in system that could eat most
>DD depending on how well you could equip it. Just a passing thought but
such
>systems did get passing mention.
>
>
I don't know exactly how much of any ship's internal volume is consumed by
its hyperdrive. It may or may not be significant enough to matter.

I suppose if the percentage was high ehough, it might be worth having some
non-hyper system defense warships. But they would seem to me to seriously
hurt the strategic flexibility of the fleet. Also, not having a hyperdrive
also prevents you from being able to do micro-jumps within the system, which
is a very useful tactical ability. In fact, I'm not sure that giving up
that ability is truly worth the extra volume that you could dedicate to
other things.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Fred Burton wrote:
> Also, not having a hyperdrive
> also prevents you from being able to do micro-jumps within the system,

Wrong universe.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Marc Reeve wrote in message ...

>Of course, the Japanese weren't the only ones screwing up by the numbers...
the
>great unanswered wuestion being why the *hell* did Halsey take the entire
US
>battle line (Task Force 34) to deal with the Japanese carriers??
>
>--
>Marc Reeve cram.DeleteThis@got.net Embrace
Spamfuscation


No argument there.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Offbreed wrote in message ...
>Fred Burton wrote:
>> Also, not having a hyperdrive
>> also prevents you from being able to do micro-jumps within the system,
>
>Wrong universe.

Not so.

Didn't Kuzak's 3rd Fleet and Honor's 8th Fleet microjump within the
Manticore system during the Battle of Manticore? Yes, they did.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:44:00 +0000 (UTC), quirk.TakeThisOut@swcp.com (Taki Kogoma)
wrote:

Fair enough your criticism, I was just throwing ideas...but, things
are different in th future and contemporary concepts maybe discarded.

pops
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates