-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
FFG(X): Constellation-class
- Thread starter Uncle Fester
- Start date
Good enough. I was thinking more along the lines of mission.
USS Resilient.
Somebody’s gotta take one for the team...
Yeah, with modern multi-role ships the distinctions are largely pointless. For instance, what we call destroyers are called frigates in Europe. And we and the Russians are the only nations who operate cruisers.
Any ship can be a minesweeper once.
As far as naming ships, any name that is steeped in tradition is a good choice because it has historical roots and avoids the messy entanglements of modern politics.
As a kid growing up watching old war movies and playing Battleship, I was under the assumption that the delineation went something like this:
- Destroyer - Small with a couple guns
- Frigate - little bigger than a Destroyer with some more guns
- Cruiser - little bigger than a Frigate with more more bigger guns
- Battleship - big with lotsa big guns
- Carrier - big with lotsa planes
The first three have evolved with politics as much as doctrine (U.S. and NATO doctrine) and they'll change again in the next fifty years. Destroyers and frigates have kinda swapped since WWII, but there's also a gray area covering all three.
Just to muddy the waters some more, here are a few ideas from just the last fifty years-
The Ticonderogas were almost designated frigates (politics) when they were still on the drawing board. That was when the Cold War was still cold, post-Vietnam but pre-Afghanistan (Russian intervention), strategic arms treaties era, kind of a weird time politically and also still a lot of WWII hulls on the registries in a lot of navies. Then we settled on calling them destroyers. Then we changed our minds and decided they should be called cruisers.
There was a loose definition that cruisers are equipped and manned to simultaneously fight two major warfare areas (pick two of three: ASW, surface, air) but then again the Burke-class destroyers meet this standard.
In the 1980s we thought of frigates as half-sized warships, like small destroyers without the redundancy, ocean going but half as many missiles, one propeller instead of two, fewer guns- the Perrys were like a thumbnail sketch of this concept. But then again, in the last 20 years the Spanish F100 frigates have the very combat systems that tipped the scales of our own Ticonderogas to be called cruisers. And the Japanese
So yeah, doctrinally, swap frigate for destroyer in your order, but other than that you've got the right idea. Politically, call them whatever you wish.
Typically, modern (post-WW2) warships are delineated by length or tonnage. It goes something like this:
< 300 feet = Patrol boat
300-400 feet = Corvette
400-500 feet = Frigate
500-600 feet = Destroyer
600+ feet = Cruiser
Then you have amphibious ships and carriers which are based upon design and capability. There are some caveats here as Russian and Chinese class conventions don't always line up easily and we in the US are even flexible. For instance, the Ticonderoga class CGs are based upon a Spruance class DDGs and are just slightly longer but significantly heavier. Also, Arleigh Burke class DDGs are nearly as heavy and just slightly shorter. All three ships are shorter than 600 feet where we normally draw the line for cruisers. Also, most of our NATO allies operate frigates that have as much combat capability as our destroyers in a slightly smaller package. And if we're talking about cruisers, then the only "real" cruisers left in the world are the Slava class and Kirov class ships operated by the Russians.
Ultimately, ship types are determined by a mixture of length, tonnage, combat capability, and political expediency.
To continue muddying the waters if navalism:
-frigate is a more traditional type of ship from days of sail. In the RN at least they were generally seen as independent deployers who could maintain the SLOCs. They were big enough to take on pirates and impress the locals but they weren't ships of the line.
-ship of the line is what we would think of as a battleship. Big, lots of guns. There were different rates (sizes/capability) of ships of the the line.
-USN muddied these waters with Humphrey's six super frigates. They were designed to be able to beat a standard RN frigate and run from a ship of the line.
-warship naming/doctrine/etc gets real confusing around the 1850s and doesn't really gel again until the WWII era. Somewhere in this timeframe battleships, cruisers, and destroyers emerge. Battleships are the biggest with the biggest guns; ships of the line in the traditional sense. Nelson would understand their mission. Cruisers end up filling the frigate role as independent deployers and scouts of the battle line. Also still big enough to win over anything smaller and run from anything bigger. And big enough to do the colonialism thing of showing the flag and impressing the natives. Destroyers get their name from their mission: to destroy torpedo boats and to protect the battle line.
-from here things get weird as ships get smaller. The US had Destroyer Escorts and the RN had corvettes during WWII.
-things also get weird with the introduction of the CV. Some sources would argue that the C in CV is a sign of the cruiser-like heritage of the carrier. Essentially the argument goes that CV stands for aircraft cruiser and is reflective of their initial role as scouts for the battle line.
-things get confusing again with the introduction of missiles. Some ships get a G, some don't. Doctrinally this reflects their intended roles, ships with G in their designator were there to conduct AW and ships with the G did SUW and/or ASW (burke vs spru-can). As Jim mentioned the title of frigate is confusingly and inconsistently applied in the USN at this time. When most of us who grew up with OHPs around hear the word frigate we think "smaller than a destroyer, jack of all trades, and Russian missile sponge.". But before that the USN had ships designated as DLGs and pronounced "frigate." But then these were redesignated as CGs.
-also, the relative size/importance of a ship can sometimes be determined from who's in charge of it. In the USN DDs were traditionally captained by more junior officers while Cruisers and Battleships were captained by Captains. In some Navies this can still be seen in the titles of ranks such as Corvette Captain and Frigate Captain.
It'd be nice if they stuck with a 'notable USN frigates' naming convention for this class. Revolutionary War frigates like Alliance. Hornet is available. Eagle and Saratoga were both sloops at Lake Champlain. Having cruised on the last Sammy B, I would like to see another Samuel B Roberts. And Simpson, which was after all the last US warship to sink an enemy ship in action.
I just looked it up and other than a couple of rinky-dink little salvage ships and sub tenders, there's never been another USS Chesapeake. Too much bad juju on the name even after 200 years?
I just looked it up and other than a couple of rinky-dink little salvage ships and sub tenders, there's never been another USS Chesapeake. Too much bad juju on the name even after 200 years?
When you fail so badly you get turned into a gift shop in England . . .
Edit:
Call one USS Congress, and watch the jokes start writing themselves . . .
Parts of the old HMS Macedonian are built into a nice pub in Charlestown MA. As for reusing Chesapeake, why not? We got over USS Nautilus being captured in 1812. I have always like Essex for a warship name.