"Ships of the Line: Frigates " Topic

Quite interesting reading here…

"One of the oldest and continuously used classifications for surface warships is the Frigate, and it goes all the way back to the Age of Sail. However, the name "Frigate" is often confused and contextual based on the time period in discussion. The Age of Sail Frigates and the Post-WWII Frigates are entirely different. This traditional classification of naval warships has also made out into the ranks of combat starships seen in works like Mass Effect, Old Man's War, and Star Trek. Here, in the next installment of Ships of the Line, FWS will breakdown the Frigate of past, present, and future…"

Much more here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I'm looking at the pictures and thinking
"Frigate"
"Frigate"
"Curling iron"

Spot on James

Strange, I was thinking 'archaic target.'
'Archaic target.'
'Kewl.'

Of course, not really. ;->=

I thought frigate and cruiser had been almost synonymous, that is, able to act independently for long periods, not suitable to stand in the line.

Also, I thought current 'frigates' were moving to match this older definition.

Doug

Well – in the age of sail – a "Cruizer" could be just about anything that could carry out a "cruizing" mission.

The Frigate was generally felt to be the most effective cruiser in the mid-late 18th to mid-19th century but, some smaller ships of the line and ships down to Brigs and the like were also used by various navies at various times.

As far as Sci-Fi goes – no consistency exists on ANY traditional ship types. Babylon 5 had Earthforce "Destroyers" big enough to spook the Battlestar Galactica and of course, Star Wars is guilty in that area too…

Babylon 5's Omega-class Destroyer was actually built on an old Dreadnought hull (the Nova-class). It needed the size to mount the (ginormous) centrifuge section.

Star Trek Attack Wing suffers from this problem due to scale inconsistencies with the source material and the publisher's "box scale" approach. You really need to check your disbelief at the door and just "go with it".

JMZ has already oft apologized for the 'destroyer' thing.

StarCrryuser: As I thought. Thanks!

In sci-fi, either you tie your definitions to historical terms and find yourself constrained by different times and situations, or go with made up.

We tend to think of Galactica as a carrier. It wasn't. It was a 'battlestar.' Damn lucky for them. Most genre trying to do the same really sound artificial. *shurg*

Doug

IIRC, the Star Wars ships where called Star Destroyers… if you're gonna tag a star then you need a REALLY big ship!

Frigate in the age of sail generally meant all the heavy guns were on a single deck.

Destroyer referred to the escort mission of destroying small torpedo carrying boats that were a threat to major warships. So the question is what were 'Star Destroyers' tasked with destroying? Stars? Or just other space vessels? Maybe 'destroyer=warship' in Star Wars. Cruisers are just starships that (might) have some combat capability.

"Star Destroyer"….cool.
"Star Cruiser"….cool.
"Star Frigate"…. Not cool.

The only sci-fi I've ever seen with any where close to ship actual classifications was Legend of Galactic Heroes. Sure the fleet battles are mostly slug fests between battleships, but cruisers and destroyers are present in these fights. Even a few carriers as well.

Frigates seem to be missing, even destroyers are used for patrols. Which I think is the idea that destroyers and frigates are nearly the same ship. The Star Frontiers: Knight Hawks game has a destroyers as hull size 6 and frigates smaller as hull size 5. And I believe there are real navies that class these ships that way.