Federation Commander

Hi all.I'm working on a project,and a question came up.To wit:What would be the 'real-life' terminology of Federation 'War' Destroyers?

For example,a Captain might say,they gave me a Small Boy while his orders specified a Frigate Mine Hunter,but if you were placed in command of USS Ortega,how would you refer to her? Obviously,as a 'tin can' but what would the orders say? With NCLs,I guess they are still 'Light Cruisers',so are DWs still Destroyers?

Thanks!

EDIT:Terminology fix

Yes, it would still be a destroyer.

There is a seperate destroyer class still active at the same time that the war destroyer is active. And it's generally recognized that the war destroyers are built to be used up and worn out in a much shorter period of time than the old "lollipop" destroyers (which have a much longer service life if nothing blows them up). So it probably wouldn't be surprising to find someone referring to a given ship as a war destroyer.

But the overall ship role is that of a destroyer.

Thank you! That's what I needed,making sure the line sounded plausibly 'navy'.

I'd hazard that they would end up being referred to as their class names, more often than the other ships. This would apply to the CL's too, in my opinion.

A Fed CA is pretty much a CA, regardless of if it started as an old R-class or was a new built Constitution-class. They're the same external configuration and size and functionally are very much similar.

The DD's and CL's are so distinct that they'd be distinguished in conversation. I'm basing this on how modern-day Navy folks (and aficionados like me) refer to different ships.

Hardly anybody distinguishes between the various nuclear aircraft carriers (even the new USS Ford, which is technically a different class), with the sole exception of the quite unique U.S.S. Enterprise.

The destroyer classes are all quite a bit different from each other though, so I've usually heard people say "the Arliegh Burke-class U.S.S. Xxxx, or the Spruance-class U.S.S. Xxxx, or the Zumwalt-class U.S.S. Xxxx, etc". The ships have such large differences in size, configuration, and capabilities that the distinction is warranted to make sure the other person understands the context.

If I was writing about the CL's or the DD's in fiction, I would have my characters say something like
"...her previous station was on an older Saladin-class destroyer, so she had practical experience in what it took to create a victory, without a cruiser's firepower and redundant systems to rely on.
Yes, the new U.S.S. Ortega would be a great fit. She couldn't wait to dump her bags in her cabin and get to work.".

Excellent.

So if my project contained the lines:"Requested and required to take command of Federation Destroyer NCC-xxx:Name Goes Here" and

"So the Old Lady served on Frigate Mine Hunters early on,so an Ortega-class is quite a step up...."

I won't look a fool?

Those read pretty well.
For SFU fiction, I would add the word destroyer after Ortega-class, just to keep it clear (since it is game fiction, as opposed to how people would really talk).

djdood wrote:Those read pretty well.
For SFU fiction, I would add the word destroyer after Ortega-class, just to keep it clear (since it is game fiction, as opposed to how people would really talk).

Good point!

Thank you for the advice all around.

I would second adding the word destroyer in there, since it's not as well known or iconic as the Constitution class, or even those from the FJ tech manual like the Saladin, Federation, Ptolemy, and Hermes.

Any hints as to what the fiction article is about?

EDIT: Sorry this post looks late, I got sidetracked between clicking reply and actually typing it, and had started it before your reply there.

Hey,O.G.!

As to hints,I'm looking for the flavor of a small ship at war.Somewhere in tone between The Caine Mutiny or The Enemy Below,rather than another "Big Ship saves the World" story.

"small ships for small missions"

There are no small ships... only small Captain's!!!

low-down, dirty-rotten, methane-breathing, trashcan-looking Hydrans!!!

Scoutdad -

This Hydran hate on your part can't be good for your psychological health. Cease this constant complaint now, before it's too late, and give in to your Hydran overlords. The mere fact that you keep repeating this invective demonstrates how little success you've had against the Hydrans. Save yourself the emotional pain of a continued string of failures, and give in now instead of later.



And I'd say that Stingers are fairly small ships.

That do a really good job of blowing up great big ones.

junior wrote:Scoutdad -

This Hydran hate on your part can't be good for your psychological health. Cease this constant complaint now, before it's too late, and give in to your Hydran overlords. The mere fact that you keep repeating this invective demonstrates how little success you've had against the Hydrans. Save yourself the emotional pain of a continued string of failures, and give in now instead of later.



And I'd say that Stingers are fairly small ships.

That do a really good job of blowing up great big ones.

The repeated invective comes from a two-fold experience:
1) Trying to calculate the production costs of the Hydran ships under the earlier version of the F&E rules(this has been somewhat simplified with th current round of MSITs, but the memory lingers on...)
2) Watching my erstwhile Hydran opponent continue to needless sacrifice the lives of his ships and their crews trying to vainly defend Hydramax from a combined assault from the Lyran Enemy's Blood fleet and the Klingon Southern Fleet at Origins last year. An attack which I should point was in response to an unprovoked Hydran attack on the Enemy's Blood starbase.

The "line - low-down, dirty-rotten, methane-breathing, trashcan-looking Hydrans!!!" arose after 76 Lyran ships were destroyed (during 20+ rounds of combat) before the Hydrans saw the error of their defense and the remaining 3 ships (out of 100+ at the start) retreated to the Old Colonies area.

You are correct about Stingers, though. They do blow things up very well... if you're unlucky enough to get close to a lot of them.

junior wrote:That do a really good job of blowing up great big ones.

Just be thankful that ship explosions have gone away. I remember an early SFB game where the Hydrans had 3 or 4 dozen Stingers in the same hex... Everyone on the Klingon side targeted one small F5 located close to the Stingers. When the F5 blew-up - so did the Stingers!

Ouch!

Scoutdad wrote:2) Watching my erstwhile Hydran opponent continue to needless sacrifice the lives of his ships and their crews trying to vainly defend Hydramax from a combined assault from the Lyran Enemy's Blood fleet and the Klingon Southern Fleet at Origins last year. An attack which I should point was in response to an unprovoked Hydran attack on the Enemy's Blood starbase.

The "line - low-down, dirty-rotten, methane-breathing, trashcan-looking Hydrans!!!" arose after 76 Lyran ships were destroyed (during 20+ rounds of combat) before the Hydrans saw the error of their defense and the remaining 3 ships (out of 100+ at the start) retreated to the Old Colonies area.

Ah, but those were Lyran ships that couldn't be used against the Kzintis.

So it sounds to me as if the Hydrans did their job in the greater scheme of things...


Hydrans - Sacrificial trash cans for the greater good.

Everyone on the Klingon side targeted one small F5 located close to the Stingers. When the F5 blew-up - so did the Stingers!

Err... huh?

The F5 is a Klingon ship. Are you telling me that the Klingon players were all firing on one of their own ships?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just self-destruct it?