All you need are Nike BCL

::a Naughty Moose replies:
Unless it is called a Constitution-class Frigate!

Naughty Moose

namelessfly wrote:
A ship that can ream SLN BCs and even take on
SLN SDs should not be called a Frigate.

namelessfly wrote:

Whitecold wrote:A Roland can't stand up to its own weapons, one double broadside will completely destroy the ship, thus its effectiveness is limited to the time it takes someone else to make an equivalent design.
It has been stated that the warship of the future will need keyhole to survive, and that the smallest hull for that will end up in the 400kton range, which would be then your destroyer.
Then a Roland would be considered a frigate, but currently calling a ship that has more combat power than any CA in existence but the Sanagami-C a frigate is a bit too much.
In the end it doesn't matter what you call your ship, both sizes, equipment, and definition of types can and will all change over time.

A ship that can ream SLN BCs and even take on SLN SDs should not be called a Frigate.

Well, there might be a certain PR value to it. ("Our frigates just trashed you battlecruisers. Man, your ships are bad.") But, really, that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to call them frigates. (Especially since the SLN would respond that, in fact, they are light cruisers.)

namelessfly wrote:

Whitecold wrote:A Roland can't stand up to its own weapons, one double broadside will completely destroy the ship, thus its effectiveness is limited to the time it takes someone else to make an equivalent design.
It has been stated that the warship of the future will need keyhole to survive, and that the smallest hull for that will end up in the 400kton range, which would be then your destroyer.
Then a Roland would be considered a frigate, but currently calling a ship that has more combat power than any CA in existence but the Sanagami-C a frigate is a bit too much.
In the end it doesn't matter what you call your ship, both sizes, equipment, and definition of types can and will all change over time.

A ship that can ream SLN BCs and even take on SLN SDs should not be called a Frigate.

That's right. Ships capable of taking out SLN SDs are called escape pods.

Lord Skimper wrote:What we know is that a LACis about 5000 displacement tons Shrike anyway. And that a Keyhole is closer to 50,000. And a Frigate is about the size of a dispatch boat which is 45,000 tons displacement. And a small DD is 68000 while a GL & eight ET which are themselves huge fit into 100,000 tons. Plus how many hundred of crew life support for those 100's etc... Frigate size might be the magic size / number.

A Frigate may be the last shot of the GL the only thing with the closing speed and stealth needed to get into firing range. Yes it would gut the rest of its armament but perhaps it could keep its rear Graser.

As for it being longer than the keyhole yeah it is but the space would not be inter changable as is now, although I suppose it could be made to be, but it would needed to be made to be one the other or both. Same amount of space different configuration.

A) As has been pointed out, a LAC is around 20,000 tons, not 5000. (But note that it is much denser than hyper-capable ships.)
B) A frigate is necessarily larger than a dispatch boat, because it has weapons. Frigates are 60,000 tons or larger.
C) I'm not sure where you get the figure of 50,000 tons for a Keyhole. Keyhole II masses 20,000 tons, not 50,000 tons. It is also probably denser than a frigate.

namelessfly wrote:

Whitecold wrote:A Roland can't stand up to its own weapons, one double broadside will completely destroy the ship, thus its effectiveness is limited to the time it takes someone else to make an equivalent design.
It has been stated that the warship of the future will need keyhole to survive, and that the smallest hull for that will end up in the 400kton range, which would be then your destroyer.
Then a Roland would be considered a frigate, but currently calling a ship that has more combat power than any CA in existence but the Sanagami-C a frigate is a bit too much.
In the end it doesn't matter what you call your ship, both sizes, equipment, and definition of types can and will all change over time.

A ship that can ream SLN BCs and even take on SLN SDs should not be called a Frigate.

I know that will never happen in the Honorverse but there's no reason a Frigate couldn't be the name of a ship type that could beat a ship of the line or wall.

Frigates probably have the most variety of meanings out of any type of warships. The late 16th century Dunkirker frigates were short ranged raiders but the Dutch developed longer ranged ocean going frigates and most of the major powers followed their example using frigates as independent warships, raiders, or escorts and in the early ironclad age Armored Frigates were among the most powerful warship on Earth, only outgunned and outclassed by the very rare Armored ship of the line until the development of Battleships.

Than in World War II the term Frigate was used for some classes of anti-submarine escort ships than late in the war Anti-Aircraft Frigates began to appear, and after the war they were joined by missile Frigates, and eventually Multirole Frigate, with some of the more modern designs including stealth features.

As noted displacement mass in HoS is not the same as mass weight. It is a measure of how much water Or in the Honorverse alcohol it would displace.

Alcohol as the 0.25 rule. If it were water it would be closer to 0.35.

Displacement mass is a measure of space.

As such in a cube length times width times height. Times by 0.25 or divided by 4. A Shrike is roughly cylindrical 72 metres by 19 by 20 metres. The maximum displacement of a ship would be no more than 6840 tons. Likely less. Closer to 5000 displacement tons. As BuNine noted the LAC numbers in HoS are off compared to the other ships.

Otherwise the shrike would displace more than the larger highlander. Remember displace not weight. A shrike is not a Tardus and a shrike is un armoured. It doesn't have a higher density. It might have less empty space, but the density of what it has isn't any higher than on any other un armoured ship.

As for a frigate being 60000 tons that would be great as a grav lance would fit a gravlance and 8? Energy torpedoes plus crew etc... Fit on a 88000 ton ship.

Again Displacement not weight. This is why an empty freighter accelerates at the same speed as a fully laden freighter. In the Honorverse.

Lord Skimper wrote:As noted displacement mass in HoS is not the same as mass weight. It is a measure of how much water Or in the Honorverse alcohol it would displace.

Alcohol as the 0.25 rule. If it were water it would be closer to 0.35.

Displacement mass is a measure of space.

As such in a cube length times width times height. Times by 0.25 or divided by 4. A Shrike is roughly cylindrical 72 metres by 19 by 20 metres. The maximum displacement of a ship would be no more than 6840 tons. Likely less. Closer to 5000 displacement tons. As BuNine noted the LAC numbers in HoS are off compared to the other ships.

Otherwise the shrike would displace more than the larger highlander. Remember displace not weight. A shrike is not a Tardus and a shrike is un armoured. It doesn't have a higher density. It might have less empty space, but the density of what it has isn't any higher than on any other un armoured ship.

As for a frigate being 60000 tons that would be great as a grav lance would fit a gravlance and 8? Energy torpedoes plus crew etc... Fit on a 88000 ton ship.

Again Displacement not weight. This is why an empty freighter accelerates at the same speed as a fully laden freighter. In the Honorverse.

As much as I like the idea of new GA frigates I think an all gravlance and energy torp armament would be a really really bad idea. Look at the issues Fearless had in combat in OBS and that was a ship which only had most of its weapons replaced with gavlances and energy torps rather than being armed with nothing but gravlances and energy torps. The range you would have to get to in order to make use of the gravlance would be basically suicidal for a Frigate.

Of course for Torch the devastator or demolisher or whatever it is called might be better to mount on a Frigate. Kill the wedge of the fleeing transport and as long as Asterix or Obelisks are not onboard, you capture and free more friends.

No. Call it a corvette maybe though? imagine the word spreading of a 'corvette' able to destroy a SD.....

namelessfly wrote:

A ship that can ream SLN BCs and even take on SLN SDs should not be called a Frigate.

Lord Skimper wrote:OK I suppose you could just mount the frigate in place of a keyhole platform. Given nobody likes flying around in a frigate, unless they have to.

LAC have problems mainly they can't move around a system fast. Plus you can't leave them behind. A frigate you can Leave behind or send for additional help.

One or two frigates in place of one or both keyhole.

The Nike BCL has a small crew comparable to older DD CL. With a frigate or two they can do anything DD or CL or CA can do.

One wonders if a frigate could mount a weapon that cannot be named?

No. Don't say it. A cruiser had to have major refit work to fit the weapon that can't be named. It's been stated that the wedge required to be a sump for the unnamable weapon must be at least a cruiser wedge.