Making a permanent "Well Flogged and Dead Horses" thread

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:Really the problem with Frigates is this - you cannot hold sufficient CMs and defenses in a traditional Frigate sized hull to reliably survive a combat scenario in a laserhead environment and still carry sufficient anti-shipping weapons and decent cruise capability, without reaching the size and cost of a Destroyer.

And they cost a significant fraction of a destroyer so even though they're still perfectly serviceable ships for some moderate anti-piracy work any navy interested in doing more wouldn't want to sink, say, 80% of the cost of a modern destroyer into a ship capable of performing maybe 40% of that destroyer's potential roles.

But a small navy just growing out of LAC-only system-defense/local anti-piracy mission might be reasonably happy adding a few frigates to their order of battle. They could provide more timely response outside the hyper limit or enable very minimal escorting or remote anti-piracy missions. With no serious naval pretensions being able to afford 5 frigates for the cost of 4 destroyers might outweigh the fact that those 4 destroyers could probably defeat 8-10 of the frigates in a stand-up fight.

ldwechsler wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:
And they cost a significant fraction of a destroyer so even though they're still perfectly serviceable ships for some moderate anti-piracy work any navy interested in doing more wouldn't want to sink, say, 80% of the cost of a modern destroyer into a ship capable of performing maybe 40% of that destroyer's potential roles.

But a small navy just growing out of LAC-only system-defense/local anti-piracy mission might be reasonably happy adding a few frigates to their order of battle. They could provide more timely response outside the hyper limit or enable very minimal escorting or remote anti-piracy missions. With no serious naval pretensions being able to afford 5 frigates for the cost of 4 destroyers might outweigh the fact that those 4 destroyers could probably defeat 8-10 of the frigates in a stand-up fight.

A key element was to train a Torch navy. Gradually, they would have more sophisticated warships. And they did have more than a few protectors.

Theemile wrote:Either way, the designs were made for patroling and hunting down lightly armed slavers, and allowing a small navy to get the most bang for it's buck, while training it's new crews. They were never designed as true warfighters.

JeffEngel wrote:

Theemile wrote:Either way, the designs were made for patroling and hunting down lightly armed slavers, and allowing a small navy to get the most bang for it's buck, while training it's new crews. They were never designed as true warfighters.

For that matter, clearly not being true warfighters could have been a feature in their case. The ASL, Ballroom, and (for a time) Torch would not benefit from being perceived as an aggressive military power, or a military power at all - no one goes after a lobby group, a terrorist organization, or a spunky refugee camp like a threat the way they do a state with a fleet.

Armed starships that really can't be judged serious warships can slip under the radar and not trigger a consideration of one of these as having a genuine interstellar navy.

Theemile wrote:Either way, the designs were made for patroling and hunting down lightly armed slavers, and allowing a small navy to get the most bang for it's buck, while training it's new crews. They were never designed as true warfighters.

JeffEngel wrote:For that matter, clearly not being true warfighters could have been a feature in their case. The ASL, Ballroom, and (for a time) Torch would not benefit from being perceived as an aggressive military power, or a military power at all - no one goes after a lobby group, a terrorist organization, or a spunky refugee camp like a threat the way they do a state with a fleet.

Armed starships that really can't be judged serious warships can slip under the radar and not trigger a consideration of one of these as having a genuine interstellar navy.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:These were no ordinary Frigates. They were two missile LACs welded butt to butt that can launch 40 missiles in a singular Salvo. Few cruisers outside of the Haven quadrant could handle that.

Think of two Shrikes' worth of weapons and systems in a hull larger than 2 Shrikes with a dispatch boat-sized fusion plant in the middle of it. The automation lets you build a frigate sized vessel with much better armament and a far smaller crew than was ever possible previously. It's still toast against a properly designed DD from the same tech base, but it can chew the posterior off of substantially larger ships w/out Haven Sector-level weaponry.

tlb wrote:Since we are still beating the horse, here is what RFC posted about the Nat Turner class in this forum:

Think of two Shrikes' worth of weapons and systems in a hull larger than 2 Shrikes with a dispatch boat-sized fusion plant in the middle of it. The automation lets you build a frigate sized vessel with much better armament and a far smaller crew than was ever possible previously. It's still toast against a properly designed DD from the same tech base, but it can chew the posterior off of substantially larger ships w/out Haven Sector-level weaponry.

So saying it is two Shrikes welded together is not a literal description, it ignores all the redesign needed for one fusion reactor and fuel to replace two fission reactors etc. Also, the reduced crew means it is not as good for training as even a early war destroyer would be.

tlb wrote:Since we are still beating the horse, here is what RFC posted about the Nat Turner class in this forum:

Think of two Shrikes' worth of weapons and systems in a hull larger than 2 Shrikes with a dispatch boat-sized fusion plant in the middle of it. The automation lets you build a frigate sized vessel with much better armament and a far smaller crew than was ever possible previously. It's still toast against a properly designed DD from the same tech base, but it can chew the posterior off of substantially larger ships w/out Haven Sector-level weaponry.

So saying it is two Shrikes welded together is not a literal description, it ignores all the redesign needed for one fusion reactor and fuel to replace two fission reactors etc. Also, the reduced crew means it is not as good for training as even a early war destroyer would be.

Theemile wrote:From a crew standpoint, you are right - from an officer standpoint, the commissioned and Sr. enlisted crew size is about the same with much the same roles as a larger ship- you could easily take the officers out of a Frigate and drop them in the senior positions of a Lt Cruiser or Destroyer when they are available.

Torch is a nation with little trained manpower - right now they need to train officers and petty officers more than able spacemen. While many of the loaners and volunteers have experience, it is from 1/2 a dozen different navies. Now is the time to build camaraderie, cadre, and common doctrine. The Frigates allow them to do that without worrying about crewing issues.

tlb wrote:

Theemile wrote:From a crew standpoint, you are right - from an officer standpoint, the commissioned and Sr. enlisted crew size is about the same with much the same roles as a larger ship- you could easily take the officers out of a Frigate and drop them in the senior positions of a Lt Cruiser or Destroyer when they are available.

Torch is a nation with little trained manpower - right now they need to train officers and petty officers more than able spacemen. While many of the loaners and volunteers have experience, it is from 1/2 a dozen different navies. Now is the time to build camaraderie, cadre, and common doctrine. The Frigates allow them to do that without worrying about crewing issues.

A good part of being an officer or a senior enlisted man is managing the crew. You are correct that manning a station on frigate is good training for the same thing on a bigger ship, but that is not the whole job.

I do not know why training able seamen is not also important, we have nothing to indicate that Torch is overflowing with them. Torch needs both. If there are going to be crewing issues, it might be better to happen in training.

Theemile wrote:

tlb wrote:quote="Theemile"From a crew standpoint, you are right - from an officer standpoint, the commissioned and Sr. enlisted crew size is about the same with much the same roles as a larger ship- you could easily take the officers out of a Frigate and drop them in the senior positions of a Lt Cruiser or Destroyer when they are available.

Torch is a nation with little trained manpower - right now they need to train officers and petty officers more than able spacemen. While many of the loaners and volunteers have experience, it is from 1/2 a dozen different navies. Now is the time to build camaraderie, cadre, and common doctrine. The Frigates allow them to do that without worrying about crewing issues./quote
A good part of being an officer or a senior enlisted man is managing the crew. You are correct that manning a station on frigate is good training for the same thing on a bigger ship, but that is not the whole job.

I do not know why training able seamen is not also important, we have nothing to indicate that Torch is overflowing with them. Torch needs both. If there are going to be crewing issues, it might be better to happen in training.

I would agree - Personnel management IS an important of any leadership position. However, they currently have a limited # of people with quality training from a number of sources. having a number of small, tight ships allows Torch to build effective command staffs now, in addition to building doctrine and tradition, and conduct effective operations now.

Able spacemen also matter, but it takes time to train them and Torch is still working up every aspect of it's navy - putting off MASS training NOW allows it to focus on what matters and feel it's way into a good training regimen - once it has sufficient "old hands" and doctrine to teach the pleebs.