Terran Ship Classes

[Jeremy]

I'm trying to see for what reason the humans built the America-Class at all. While the Centaur-Class is not as powerful, it can still be used on patrol, which is much more useful than ships that tend to largely rust at the docks. I mean, what if humans had not met another alien for 50 or 100 years?

And in the TCA, how are Destroyers and Frigates differentiated?

[QuakeIV]

I'm not arioch or anything, but generally speaking, you don't want your government to actually have any real chance of losing to something like pirates or terrorists in a fair fight, which is usually the point of capital ships that are so expensive they only come out for exercises (maybe not even that given remarks about 'simulation jockeys') or actual war.

Had there been any great danger beyond that, I would assume they probably would've gone for more than four of them.

[Arioch]

The Colonial Fleet was formed at a time when there was an undeclared war going on between entities in the Sol system and Aldea, and both sides had built armed starships that were interfering with interstellar trade routes. The America class was designed to completely outclass anything that either side could reasonably be expected to construct, mainly as a deterrent to future conflict. By the time the cruisers had entered production, the conflict had been resolved, and so the production run was cut short. There is continuing controversy over whether keeping the five that were completed is worthwhile, but those in favor had managed to keep them from being scrapped. Keeping most of the cruisers out of service significantly reduced the cost of maintaining them.

[Jeremy]

The Colonial Fleet was formed at a time when there was an undeclared war going on between entities in the Sol system and Aldea, and both sides had built armed starships that were interfering with interstellar trade routes. The America class was designed to completely outclass anything that either side could reasonably be expected to construct, mainly as a deterrent to future conflict. By the time the cruisers had entered production, the conflict had been resolved, and so the production run was cut short. There is continuing controversy over whether keeping the five that were completed is worthwhile, but those in favor had managed to keep them from being scrapped. Keeping most of the cruisers out of service significantly reduced the cost of maintaining them.

Very interesting. But what about the difference between Destroyers and Frigates?

[Arioch]

But what about the difference between Destroyers and Frigates?

Oh yeah, sorry. Destroyers tend to be larger and equipped primarily as fleet escorts, whereas a frigate is smaller and cheaper and designed primarily for solo patrol.

I think that's more or less the distinction between destroyers and frigates in today's navies.

[Jeremy]

True, they are. I was just wondering, since the cruisers get out of docks more often than destroyers, if the destroyers do make patrols solo.

[Arioch]

True, they are. I was just wondering, since the cruisers get out of docks more often than destroyers, if the destroyers do make patrols solo.

The cruisers don't get out of dock more often than destroyers; it's the destroyers and scouts that the Colonial Fleet most often uses for patrol. The twelve Hayes-class frigates are operated as police vessels by the various colonial administrations, on the condition that the Colonial Fleet can call them up as a reserve in an emergency. Any ship type might be used for solo patrol or grouped fleet action... though the only grouped fleet action that they'd be doing in peacetime is training exercises.

[QuakeIV]

IMO for 'modern ships' its not really that destroyers are more geared towards fleet escort, its that frigates tend to just mean "poor man's destroyer", which usually results in it being geared more towards independent operations because they usually have less of a fleet to co-operate with in the first place.

In the carrier centric navy doctrine of the world, everything tends to in some capacity be an escort. (even if that particular country's carrier is only really useful for deploying a small expeditionary force morso than launching jets)

[Arioch]

Destroyers can do anything that a frigate can do, but if you have them doing tasks that don't require all that expensive extra capability, that's not cost effective even for a "rich" navy. The US Navy is buying a bunch of new frigates, because they just don't have enough ships to be everywhere that ships need to be. I expect they may be used in carrier groups to some extent, but that's not their primary design philosophy.

Today's navies have gotten kind of skewed in ship classes though, since even the US Navy doesn't have cruisers anymore (except the older Ticonderoga-class light cruisers that are still in service, and even those were built on destroyer hulls). The smaller "littoral combat ships" didn't work out, so going forward in terms of surface combatants we have destroyers and frigates and that's pretty much it.

Sort of ironically, the spiritual replacement for the battleship has been the attack submarine, which have become so expensive that they've started naming them after states, the way they used to do with battleships. But I digress...

[QuakeIV]

The US navy is psychologically and biologically incapable of building frigates (they weigh 7300 tons)

Because the US destroyers employ modular missile systems they don't really need to expend that much extra to enable them to operate alone fairly comfortably. They already require the fairly costly air defense radar and sonar systems to perform their escort duties effectively so you are left with a platform that can simply fit out with land attack or anti ship missiles and be able to use its existing systems to guide those and strike at whatever the intended targets are without any major refit or changes.

It is at least worth noting the constellations will be going out with somewhat less bespoke radar systems (at least if they havent changed their minds), which was a major cost issue.

[gaerzi]

I think that's more or less the distinction between destroyers and frigates in today's navies.

Some navies (including, according to Wikipedia, Canadian, Dutch, French, German, and Spanish navies) do not make a distinction and call everything a frigate. Which has some amusing complications, because for example the French FREMM are considered to be destroyers (they get a NATO hull code starting with D) while the Italian FREMM are considered to be frigates (they get a hull code starting with F). Confusing!

[QuakeIV]

Well like insofar as constellation is also ostensibly a FREMM hull (its been pretty extensively messed with compared to the others) there is actually like a 2000 ton range on FREMM hulls at this point.

[Ithekro]

The Japanese seem to be planning on building a pair of 20,000 ton anti-ballistic missile defense ship in the next few years. While they might list is as a destroyer, a lot of people are considering them cruisers. Though they might get a specific purpose designation rather than an older naval classification.

[Arioch]

The Japanese seem to be planning on building a pair of 20,000 ton anti-ballistic missile defense ship in the next few years. While they might list is as a destroyer, a lot of people are considering them cruisers. Though they might get a specific purpose designation rather than an older naval classification.

Well, the Japanese also built a pair of 20,000 ton aircraft carriers and called them "helicopter destroyers," so let's just say that nomenclature is not their strong suit.

[D-503]

so let's just say that nomenclature is not their strong suit.

Same here in Germany. We officially only have "Frigates", because "Destroyer" sounds too "aggressive". No kidding.

Back ontopic: My concern with the terran fleet is that all of them are so painfully slow. They are NO match to anything Umiak or Loroi; probably not even a match for their "dump trucks"...

Isn´t there anything in the pipeline? I mean, earth´s military planners surely got some intel by the Orgus?

Something with at least 30g acceleration should be doable, even if it´s only purpose is "to flee"?

[Arioch]

My concern with the terran fleet is that all of them are so painfully slow. They are NO match to anything Umiak or Loroi; probably not even a match for their "dump trucks"...

Isn´t there anything in the pipeline? I mean, earth´s military planners surely got some intel by the Orgus?

Something with at least 30g acceleration should be doable, even if it´s only purpose is "to flee"?

It has only been a little more than a year and a half since first contact, so there's a limited amount that could be done in that amount of time. The TCA accelerated already existing plans (Mjolnir cruiser refits, the planned new Mjolnir destroyer class, and completion of two unfinished cruiser hulls), but any new designs will still require some time before they see the light of day. And such designs won't be dramatic improvements over what is currently available, at least in the near term. Human engineers have been studying the Orgus vessel, and they have learned some things, but these innovations are a long way from finding their way into the pipeline of new construction, and they're not game-changing improvements. Orgus technology is not up to the same standard of the major combatants, and the Orgus vessel was a civilian transport that wasn't very new or all that remarkable in performance compared to Terran military vessels.

In the near term, they are limited by the power of currently available engines. They might be able to get something to accelerate at 30G if it was nothing but a Kerbal bundle of engines, but that would be of limited use, even as a torpedo.

[QuakeIV]

Lol, kerbal bundle of engines. Makes me think of headshot asteroid.

[Ithekro]

While I don't know the Orgus tech, I can image they might be able to pull more Gs of acceleration than a current Terran model warship. It might not be anywhere close to modern interstellar warships, but even 10G or 12G acceleration is better than what Earth can manage in the present. They might at least be able to escort slow Loroi convoys.

[gaerzi]

Well, the Japanese also built a pair of 20,000 ton aircraft carriers and called them "helicopter destroyers," so let's just say that nomenclature is not their strong suit.

It's because postwar Japan's constitution forbids ownership of offensive war weapons. That's why the Japanese military is called the "self-defense forces", and why they absolutely do not have anything called an "aircraft carrier", no sir, those are "escort ships" only.

There's the same sort of blatant rule-lawyering in Russia where their aircraft carriers are "aircraft cruisers" because the Montreux Convention doesn't allow warships heavier than 15 000 tons to cross the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits unless they are cruisers. So the Kuznetsov is a cruiser. Obviously.

[D-503]

In the near term, they are limited by the power of currently available engines. They might be able to get something to accelerate at 30G if it was nothing but a Kerbal bundle of engines, but that would be of limited use, even as a torpedo.

Kerbal Space Program FTW!
Well, that´s at least a bit reassuring; or a tiny piece of hope.

A comparison between our todays cars and those from roughly a 100 years ago comes to my mind - a 1920s standard vehicle (Terran Fleet) is no match for even the most basic hatchback (Umiak/Loroi standard ships) today, while vintage super sports from that era still are very impressive; e.g. Duesenberg SSJ or Mercedes SSKL with their top speeds north of 150mph.

And only a few years later Mercedes built the T-80, so "that kerbal escape torpedo" could at least save some people...