Crown of Swords and Frigates

"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:e381j5$1ehv$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> deowll wrote in message ...
>>
>>"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>>news:e32mdm$30ak$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>>
>>> deowll wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>"Taki Kogoma" <quirk DeleteThis @swcp.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:e2qs7a$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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Must be manticore is building them by the thousands and so are the peeps.
>>
>>
>>
>
> deowll, I think that the thought about equipping a hyperdrive or not was
> related to heavier starships, not LACs. Besides, LACs are small enough to
> be carried by LAC carriers.
>
>
>
>

Firgates are small relatively cheap warships and LAC carriers are about the
size one of Mars's moons. If you make a big enough warship transport you can
move anything. If you take a look at a picture of LAC they aren't all that
small.

LACs are real warships and get around solar systems with no problems. Most
can voyage for a week or more without resupply but that limit was a design
choice. What defines them is they lack an FTL drive. I don't know that you
couldn't make them as big as you want them.

Of course some/all of the fortresses are moderately mobile and lack ftl
drives.

I don't wish to belabor the point but it does appear that a lot of mobile
military hardware isn't equipped with an ftl drive and the best match I can
make for a LAC in current terms is a frigate or a PT boat.


Because LAC don't have FTL drives and large amounts of life support they can
be much smaller, cheaper, and carry much smaller crews than a regular
warships with the same size sensors and fangs. They don't even need to be
able to do major repairs. If they have a problem they can run for a base or
call for a LAC tender. Because they are short range ships they can be more
cost effective than long range ships that need FTL drives, a lot more life
support, a lot of space to carry a lot of supplies, vastly greater
abilities to do their own repairs, and larger crews, etc. On the whole that
is fairly near my idea of firgate. Of course it would be nice if they could
at least jump over to a neigboring system but that is where the LAC
transport comes in and it does have all those cost hogs but doesn't need to
risk them in combat.

deowll wrote:
> "Fred Burton" <fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
> news:e381j5$1ehv$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>> deowll wrote in message ...
>>> "Fred Burton" <fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e32mdm$30ak$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>>> deowll wrote in message ...
>>>>> "Taki Kogoma" <quirk RemoveThis @swcp.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e2qs7a$mm8$1@iruka.swcp.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:10:55 -0700, Offbreed
>>>>>> <offbreed_106 RemoveThis @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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Must be manticore is building them by the thousands and so are the peeps.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> deowll, I think that the thought about equipping a hyperdrive or not was
>> related to heavier starships, not LACs. Besides, LACs are small enough to
>> be carried by LAC carriers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Firgates are small relatively cheap warships and LAC carriers are about the
> size one of Mars's moons. If you make a big enough warship transport you can
> move anything. If you take a look at a picture of LAC they aren't all that
> small.
>
> LACs are real warships and get around solar systems with no problems. Most
> can voyage for a week or more without resupply but that limit was a design
> choice. What defines them is they lack an FTL drive. I don't know that you
> couldn't make them as big as you want them.
>
> Of course some/all of the fortresses are moderately mobile and lack ftl
> drives.
>
> I don't wish to belabor the point but it does appear that a lot of mobile
> military hardware isn't equipped with an ftl drive and the best match I can
> make for a LAC in current terms is a frigate or a PT boat.
>
>
> Because LAC don't have FTL drives and large amounts of life support they can
> be much smaller, cheaper, and carry much smaller crews than a regular
> warships with the same size sensors and fangs. They don't even need to be
> able to do major repairs. If they have a problem they can run for a base or
> call for a LAC tender. Because they are short range ships they can be more
> cost effective than long range ships that need FTL drives, a lot more life
> support, a lot of space to carry a lot of supplies, vastly greater
> abilities to do their own repairs, and larger crews, etc. On the whole that
> is fairly near my idea of firgate. Of course it would be nice if they could
> at least jump over to a neigboring system but that is where the LAC
> transport comes in and it does have all those cost hogs but doesn't need to
> risk them in combat.
>

Yeah, LACs are a sort of cross between an X-Wing and a Torpedo or Gun
boat, with the balance between the various types of analogues depending
on the specific design of the LAC in question. Mantie LACs are much
more long-legged than Havenite LACs, but that's because Mantie LACs are
small warships and Havenite LACs are big shuttles (the Havenites
sacrificed longevity for raw power).

I wouldn't call any of them being equivalent to Frigates, since most
examples of Frigates that I can think of were capable of trans-oceanic
travel without needing to be loaded onto a bigger ship.


--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"