Warship type descriptions

[Hyphen]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Translating to Traveller.

Battleship/Drednaught
Cruiser
Destroyer/Fleet Escort (3Kton-8Kton)
Destroyer Escort/Frigate (1000-2000 Tons)
Corvette (<1000 tons)

Can I suggest the names be reorganised and expanded, and the FE class increased to 20kT:

Destroyer/Fleet Escort (3Kton-20Kton)
Frigate/Destroyer Escort (1000-2000 Tons)
Corvette/Close Escort (<1000 tons)

This then matches nicely with the canonical Library Data entry on "Escorts".

 

[BetterThanLife]

The reason I picked that range for Destroyer/Fleet Escort is I have seen Light Cruisers in the 12KTon Range. Anything over 12Ktons is very likely to carry a spinal and therefore make it into the Cruiser range. You might take Destroyer/Fleet Escort to 10KTons, I limited it to 8 because I seem to remember a 10KTon Light Cruiser with a Spinal in a Challange Magazine. (Though I might be off by a Kton or two.) And while it wouldn't be good for much else you can mount a Spinal on a Starship with decent jump capability at 10Kton. As soon as you are mounting Spinals you are in Cruiser range, even if it is a very light Cruiser.

Originally posted by Hyphen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Translating to Traveller.

Battleship/Drednaught
Cruiser
Destroyer/Fleet Escort (3Kton-8Kton)
Destroyer Escort/Frigate (1000-2000 Tons)
Corvette (<1000 tons)

Can I suggest the names be reorganised and expanded, and the FE class increased to 20kT:

Destroyer/Fleet Escort (3Kton-20Kton)
Frigate/Destroyer Escort (1000-2000 Tons)
Corvette/Close Escort (<1000 tons)

This then matches nicely with the canonical Library Data entry on "Escorts".

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

Why thank you kind sir!

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:


Mr. Bhoins - Damn good list!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[The Oz]

I sometimes use the designation "Destroyer Leader" for ships in the 10-20Kton range, especially if they don't have a spinal mount. IMTU such ships are very big escorts, intended to protect the battleline.

 

[Ran Targas]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
Ran Targas wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />- Also for reasons of seniority, the nuke plants on those cruisers equiped with them required O-5 Engineering Officers as department heads.

Mr. Targas,

Wrong. I was aboard USS California CGN-36 between '83 and '87 and served under two different CHENGs; LCDR Tuddenham and LCDR Gregory. While serving aboard USS Dale CG-19 (Leahy-class), the CO was one CAPT Rodgers, previously the CHENG of USS America a billet he held at the rank of O6.
Sincerely,
Larsen </font>[/QUOTE]When I was in the surface Navy, as an engineering officer, the nuke billets were only filled with nuke trained field grade officers. If these officers were LCDR's then they were very senior LCDR's who were headed for nuke carrier duty. Every nuke officer in my department head class had the very same career path laid out for them. From carrier CHENG, they were then sent to the fleet as XO then CO on a nuke cruiser then big amphib.

IMO, the Navy never felt comfortable with nuke power plants in the hands of the typical officer or enlisted personnel. The nuke officers were hand picked, force feed nuke theory with a firehose, and even then, the CHENGS were still more senior to those on conventional ships manning the same positions. Most CHENGs on conventional surface ships are Lieutenants on their first or second department head tour. The larger ships, like the big amphibs, have Lieutenant Commanders, on their way to XO duty, due to the larger responsibility. The nukes always had senior LCDRs or even CDR filling positions of similar responsibility (I know, a nuke power plant must be factored in as addition responsibility).

BTW, I guarantee that those CHENGS on the CALI were promotable to CDR before leaving the ship. The CHENGs I knew on the ARKANSAS and TEXAS both were frocked CDR while onboard.

I'm not sure you were aware of the politics of the surface Navy while you were in but spending time in D.C. as a detailer taught me a lot the ways of the Nav. It was all about the loss of billets to aviation officers in their quest to become carrier CO's. As more billets were devoted to their progress, the career surface officers had fewer places to go. Losing the BB's hurt even more. The surface Navy struck back by elevating these ships to CAPT commands. It is still uneven, but there is a lot less ingrained competition between the surface and aviation community than in the previous decades.

Back to my point, those ship classes were cruisers only in name. Sure, they were far larger than conventional frigates and destroyers of the same time but a lot of that was due to the mission they were designed to perform. A carrier on the move is fast and it needs escorts who can keep pace without constant refueling. Nuke or conventional, this requires a bigger hull for a bigger plant and support systems. If you look at the armament, these pocket cruisers were not heavily armed, pretty much the same as the destroyers of the day.

 

[Ran Targas]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Actually, many of the CO's of CVN's are Captain grade. That the AirBoss (CAG), XO, and CEngr, and even CMO might also be captains is NOT an issue.

Currently CVN65 Enterprise is commanded by Captain Eric Neidlinger.

The Vinson is commanded by a Captain, the Exec is a captain. Only one will be referred to by Rank, typically, but in Naval organizations (US/UK), it's not an uncommon situation. And remember also, the Air Boss/CAG is NOT a ship's asset, nor is the Air Wing he commands. THey are assets of the group, and answer directly to the Carrier Group Commander, usually an admiral.

In at least one case, during WWII, there was a ship with a Commander billet CMO filled by a Captain Doctor, who happened to outrank the CO...

The number of admirals in the restricted line and staff are VERY few, thoroughly poitical, and some very senior captains have opted to remain in the fleet rather than try for the desk job. So it is entirely likely to find certain staff officers have (on paper) more seniority that their skippers do.

Aramis,

You are correct. In fact, all carriers and big deck amphibs (including LPDs) are always commanded by full bird Captains (O-6). So are some auxilaries so aviators in line for carrier command can get "deep draft" training.

Nuke carriers have CAPT (O-6) career surface Navy Engineering Officers in charge of their power plants. These officers will never command a carrier because they are not aviators. Congress has dictated that carriers will commanded only by aviators. Carrier command is the destiny for only the XO and CAG (always senior aviators too), not any of the surface officers manning the rest of the ship. It's a strange perdicament.

Often times the Fleet Surgical Teams that deploy with carriers or big amphibs are headed by a very senior reserve doctor. Most come right out of private practice or metro hospitals. Some are CAPTs (O-6) and some are CDRs (O-5).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Until recently, the T20 Meson destruction capability, I tended to design ships in that range with spinals. Simply because of the destructive capability. THere is no reason to build a ship in the 15-20KTon range without a spinal, while squeezing it into a 10-15Kton ship is difficult it is worth it. Anything that can carry a spinal should carry a spinal. So your destroyer Leaders would find themselves mainly facing Cruisers. Granted Cruisers under 20KTons are marginal Cruisers, but they still pack in an exponential increase in firepower. Now T20 has changed the equation somewhat. The power of the Meson no longer requires a Spinal. The Meson Bay is almost as deadly. (Especially when mounted in twos and threes.) YOu can fit two on a 5KTon Destroyer but it is a tight fit. So in MTU a Destroyer Leader is in the 8Kton range and mounts 2-3 Meson bays. But these ships would be a relatively new development as the Meson Bay doesn't come into its own until about TL-14. And still aren't much until TL-15. At TL-15 3 100T meson bays are almost equivalent to a Spinal. (Still lacks the range and will only get you a mission kill on a Drednaught, instead of vaporization, but it is close.)

Originally posted by The Oz:
I sometimes use the designation "Destroyer Leader" for ships in the 10-20Kton range, especially if they don't have a spinal mount. IMTU such ships are very big escorts, intended to protect the battleline.

 

[The Oz]

Bhoins:

It's a matter of defense. If I don't put in a spinal mount I can use that tonnage (and the powerplant tonnage I don't have to put in) for armor, making a 20kt Destroyer Leader able to withstand the spinal particle accelerators that are the best thing to use to kill most escorts as they have better accuracy and there's no defense against them but size and armor.

Putting a spinal mount into a 20kt ship tends to draw enemy fire to it and a ships so equipped is not able to withstand such fire.

Of course, I'm talking about such ships in CT/HG/PPF, and not T20. From what you and everyone else has said, in T20 the best warship is a small ship with all the meson bays it can hold.

 

[Antony]

In that much maligned publication Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium the 10,000dt escorts are classed as Escort Destroyers - ED (I took this to mean that they are designed to blat smaller escorts like Destroyer Escorts - DE)

I have also used a displacement of 10-15,000dt for small cruisers termed Scout Cruisers (Harping back to WW1)

 

[Whipsnade]

Ran Targas wrote:

I'm not sure you were aware of the politics of the surface Navy while you were in but spending time in D.C. as a detailer taught me a lot the ways of the Nav.

Ran,

Ugh... I'm sorry to hear you worked as a detailer... Blecch... and in D.C. too... Who'd you p*ss off to get that job?

You know, if it hadn't been for a detailer, I'd have been a career man and a mustang. As a sub vol, once I got orders out of S1W to the Pigboat; aka USS California, I withdrew my all but complete OCS paperwork and re-enlistment request. Instead of leaving leaving happily in 1987, I'd have been in until '01 at least and would have seen all the DL/CGNs scrapped(1). What an odd career that would have been.

Back to my point, those ship classes were cruisers only in name.

Oh, surely. The only real CGN built was Long Beach. Bainbridge; take a Leahy-class and drop reactors in it, was a sop to Rickover(2) and his all-nuc CVBG ideas. Truxtun was the same thing with the Belknap-class. Those two classes, the California-class, and Virginia-class were all originally DLGs, with the DL standing for either 'frigate' or 'destroyer leader' depending on which day of the week it was. It was only after all the old CAGs were scrapped that the various DLGs got their promotion to cruiser and then for the reason you described - making all those O6 khakis feel better about themselves by pretending the ship they commanded was bigger somehow. Ooos a big captain now wid a great big boat? Yes! Ooo is, Ooo is!


Sincerely,
Larsen

1 - During my last visit to Puget Sound NSY aboard the Pigboat (we'd heavily damaged the sonar dome in a wicked storm near Petropovolosk), I saw both Bainbridge and Truxtun. I wonder if they ever left the yards?

2 - Who, despite being associated with subs, actually preferred surface ships. Go figure.

 

[BetterThanLife]

If you put in a 1KTon spinal you lose the same number of turrets as if you put in a bay (10) Or go down a bay. I didn't say it was an easy fit and any Cruiser is a Compromise design in the first place. (If you want everything you were and still are stuck with Battleship tonnage.) The smaller Cruisers are just more of a compromise than the bigger Heavy Cruisers.

The higher energy requirement is the more important factor, and I do agree that there is a serious compromise in the 10KTon-20Kton ranges to fit a spinal in. Which is why, in MTU most ships are built either 10KTon- or 30Kton+. The only ships that actually fits in that range tend to be monitors/SDBs depending on naming conventions.

Originally posted by The Oz:
Bhoins:

It's a matter of defense. If I don't put in a spinal mount I can use that tonnage (and the powerplant tonnage I don't have to put in) for armor, making a 20kt Destroyer Leader able to withstand the spinal particle accelerators that are the best thing to use to kill most escorts as they have better accuracy and there's no defense against them but size and armor.

Putting a spinal mount into a 20kt ship tends to draw enemy fire to it and a ships so equipped is not able to withstand such fire.

Of course, I'm talking about such ships in CT/HG/PPF, and not T20. From what you and everyone else has said, in T20 the best warship is a small ship with all the meson bays it can hold.

 

[Ran Targas]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:

Ugh... I'm sorry to hear you worked as a detailer... Blecch... and in D.C. too... Who'd you p*ss off to get that job?

You know, if it hadn't been for a detailer, I'd have been a career man and a mustang. As a sub vol, once I got orders out of S1W to the Pigboat; aka USS California, I withdrew my all but complete OCS paperwork and re-enlistment request. Instead of leaving leaving happily in 1987, I'd have been in until '01 at least and would have seen all the DL/CGNs scrapped(1). What an odd career that would have been.
[/QB]

Sorry to hear about that; oddly enough a detailer eventually convinced me to punch too!

 

[BetterThanLife]

I saw that. The big problem with FSOTSI as far as I was concerned was that ships tended to get bigger to do the same task. Which is why in FSOTSI Cruisers were 100KTons. (Which under CT/HG and T20 tend to be Battle Cruisers.)

Originally posted by Antony:
In that much maligned publication Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium the 10,000dt escorts are classed as Escort Destroyers - ED (I took this to mean that they are designed to blat smaller escorts like Destroyer Escorts - DE)

I have also used a displacement of 10-15,000dt for small cruisers termed Scout Cruisers (Harping back to WW1)

 

[aramis]

FSOTSI also suffers from incorrect designs. You can't replicated them as preseted using MT. (Most are off in small ways, but still.)

 

[Whipsnade]

Ran Targas wrote:

Sorry to hear about that; oddly enough a detailer eventually convinced me to punch too!

Ran,

No, no, no! I was insufficiently clear. I am glad that detailer back in '82 screwed up and tossed my folder in the surface nuc pile!

I've had a relatively good life since '87 and one, looking back at things, I'm mortally sure I would not have had if I had become a mustang and stayed in. That clueless detailer actually did me a favor when he threw the surface nuc dart and hit my name.

Now back to Our Topic: What sort of non-USN, non-RN, and even non-Terran traditions and practices do you see the Imperial Navy following?

I've got a few...

- Fleet Engineer, Fleet Navigator, and Jump Space Master positions. Fleet Engineer is a super CHENG of sorts on the staff of the squadron, taks force, or fleet commander and is responsible for engineering/DC ops, equipment, and training throughout the formation. Fleet Navigator is much the same but for real space operations, comms, and electronics. Jump Space Masters are akin to the sailing masters of WS&IM days. Plotting jump courses; especially once +1km body jump shadows and masking are taken into account, must be an activity requiring highly trained individuals. Look at the Mississippi river steam boat pilots of Twain's day, harbor pilots of today, and the sailing masters of yore. IMTU, jump space masters even use rutters!

- Service arranged marriages or at least service arranged child bearing and rearing. Look at deployment times and distances involved. The pressure on marriages while I was in was hard enough (In my divisions, 11 of 13 marriages failed during a West Pac in '85). I can see the IN arranging stable marriages for its long term personnel. I can even see the IN arranging for reproductive services; i.e. uterine replicators, child rearing, etc. IMHO, it's very Vilani, very cradle to grave.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Ran Targas]

Larsen,

Excellent ideas! Maybe you should start another thread before we're accused of highjacking!

 

[Whipsnade]

Ran Targas enjoyed and reminded:

Excellent ideas! Maybe you should start another thread before we're accused of highjacking!

An unkempt grey-headed fat man blearily squints at the thread title in question and does a classic double take...

Shades of Santanocheev, Ran, I hadn't really remembered! Where are those pills... mutter. mutter

A thousand apologies, Mr. Bhoin. BTW, damn good list!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Antony]

I have always found it odd that the ships in FSOTSI which was a MegaTrav publication were actually easier to build as TNE/FF&S1 vessels