Posted on 04/15/2017 6:06:44 AM PDT by meatloaf
Without revealing TMI that issue is not an issue anymore.
Thanks for correcting me. Sometimes I have, you know, attacks of stupidity. Next time when I say a (modern) frigate should be able to take a hit, like Old Ironsides was able to take a hit, I’ll remember that Old Ironsides was able to take a hit. Well, unless I have another attack of the stupids.
I think you are also “correcting” me on the status of the original set of six frigates, as they were “heavy frigates.” They were up-gunned relative to other frigates, with especially strong hulls.
When the term frigate was revived, during WWII, it referred to a ship smaller than a destroyer and used primarily for escorting and screening missions. Both frigates and destroyers have gotten larger. Frigates of today are about the size of the frigates of WWII (2 to 3,000 tons), and destroyers of today are about the size of cruisers of WWII (6 to 8,000 tones).
I actually don’t know how the strongly the nomenclature of today (corvettes, frigates and destroyers) compares to the nomenclature of WWII (frigates, destroyers, cruisers and battleships) and of the age of sail (sloop of war, frigate and man of war). My reference to the frigate of old was not to meant to say more than we should want frigates capable of taking a hit, like the original set of six were able.
“...original set of six frigates, as they were “heavy frigates.” They were up-gunned relative to other frigates, with especially strong hulls....”
The capabilities of US “super-frigates” of 1812 were not immediately appreciated by the Royal Navy: led to unanticipated US victories in single-ship actions.
Despite that, the Royal Navy maintained overall maritime superiority. Had Old Ironsides (or any US super-frigate) suffered the ill luck to get trapped by RN ships of the line, the US vessel would have vanished in a cloud of splinters.
The armed services cannot resist using older terms to denote modern systems. It might comfort them while things change, but leads to lack of precision.
After the advent of steam propulsion, steel hulls, rifled breechloaders, nitro propellant, HE bursting charges, and mechanical fuzing, no comparison from Age-of-Sail vessels to the modern warships could have meaning. Yet navies persisted in using terms like “frigate,” “corvette,” etc (they still do it).
The term “infantry” is still used, though the footsoldier of 1817 has little in common with the footsolider of 2017.
Lack of precision leads to sloppiness in force support and operations. Brainstorming concepts for future application ought to bring out something better.
Perhaps you will concede that the difference between a frigate during the age of sail, and a man of war (or, ship of the line), was more in its design, and as to how fast it was. Not really in how many guns it was rated. When confronted by a man of war, a frigate was to outrun it.
In this regard, the revival of the term “frigate” changed the meaning of the term. It originally referred to a boat capable of independent action (although often deployed in pairs or with a lesser escort). When revived, it referred to an escort. Of course, that was in the mid 20th century. Frigates and Destroyers have gotten a lot bigger, Frigates of today displace the tonnage of Destroyers of WWII, and Destroyers of today Cruisers of WWII. So, I think I’m agreed with you that the terms are not very meaningful longitudinally. Only relative to other ships of the day. In my original post, I only meant to refer to the ability of the original U.S. frigates’ to take a hit. Nothing more.
As for the infantryman. Technologies have changed. But, the basic ability of a foot soldier to march to battle has constrained the weight of his kit. After one and then another revolution in weaponry and so forth, the sheer weight of the infantryman’s kit has remained about the same. Here is an interesting study of British foot soldiers since the Norman conquest.
Similar results - in terms of the weight of a man’s kit - are obtained for Greek hoplite militia and Roman soldiers. So, while there has been enormous change, there has also been elements of continuity. And, continuity is a good thing. I can speak for myself about this. It is good for a soldier to feel part of a long line of soldiers.
“...the difference between a frigate during the age of sail, and a man of war (or, ship of the line), was more in its design, and as to how fast it was. Not really in how many guns it was rated. When confronted by a man of war, a frigate was to outrun it. ...”
The number of guns mounted on any warship of 1800 was no less an aspect of its design than hull form, number of masts, sail square yardage, etc. And that frigate of 1800 (including a US “super frigate” built to Joshua Humphreys’ design) had no option except running away, if it was to avoid annihilation by a line of battle, or even one single ship-of-the-line. That’s why I included the words “IF TRAPPED.”
While the exploits of “Old Ironsides” and the men who served aboard her gave the public a sorely needed morale boost during the war of 1812, Americans need to stop pretending that US naval victories did anything to alter the strategic situation: Britain’s command of the seas. To reiterate Redmen4ever’s Post 47, “lots of frigates like Old Ironsides” would not have been an effective counter then. And it would not be any better, today.
Redmen4ever deserves thanks from the forum, for the link to the UK Telegraph article comparing soldiers’ kit. The imagery and captions ought to give the deep thinkers around here something to gnaw on. I’d seen displays of threat type, but never so many, nor coverage of such a broad interval of time.
The question remains: - as Redmen4ever reluctantly concedes - if the frigate of 1817 cannot be compared longitudinally to the frigate of 2017, why are we still using the same terms? “Traditions comfort us” is not really an answer.
Comparing the private soldier’s kit of today with the kit of earlier times can lead to useful insights, but deep thinkers ought to be similarly wary. Certainly, an infantryman is ultimately constrained by the weight he can carry. But what does this tell us about the capabilities of that individual soldier?
Nothing.
I want a big ship with lots of weapons and tigers too. Tigers would be awesome on a ship. I want a cool looking ship with lots of blinking lights and a sleek profile in the dark. Plenty of guns and barrels of rum too.
Anti CVN nuts are out today.
Naval warfare is won at home with a strong industrial base, ship yards lots of shipyards, huge shipbuilding industry, and huge dry docks. We have none of these things.
Once fired there are no 16 inch shell counter measures. It’s going to go where it wants to go.
That problem was fixed decades ago. Even frigates can withstand under the keel detonations.
Good!
Like I said I am not a naval architect.
The keel on modern naval vessels are a honey comb design and the ship no longer splits when hit underneath. Still underwater damage is the worst kind of damage, never a good thing.
Lazers. You can’t go wrong with lazers.
I think this is a sound approach. We need to be able to build them quickly and in great number. They need to be able to take a hit and return to port where they can either be used for spare parts for others that are still in the fight, or repaired quickly and returned to service.
They need to be able to be able of moving quickly when needed, but slower and quieter as well. Silence is needed prior to engagement, and speed is needed when the SHTF.
Blue, red or green?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
BFL
It has to be a submersible, or it's just another target.
floating automated missile launchers in large numbers
Well, I figure what the hell does the Navy know. Let’s call on a bunch of cranky old Freepers to tell them how it’s done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.