# Military word of the day



## Occam

> Military Word Of The Day
> Military Term #437 of 944:
> 
> DDH
> :
> Destroyer, Helicopter. A Destroyer Type Vessel which uses Helicopters as its primary armament.



rly:

I don't know who wrote that definition, but it needs work!


----------



## Journeyman

Occam said:
			
		

> rly:
> 
> I don't know who wrote that definition, but it needs work!


Perhaps _suggesting_ a fix.......


----------



## Occam

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Perhaps _suggesting_ a fix.......



How about "Destroyer, Helicopter"?

If anything else needs to be added, it would be "may carry an embarked helicopter".


----------



## Journeyman

Ahhh, I thought you were dismayed by the obvious absence of a comma after "Vessel," given the presence of the modifier "which." 

_Clearly_, it must be either a non-restrictive clause -- "A Destroyer Type Vessel, which uses Helicopters...," or a restrictive clause --  "A Destroyer Type Vessel that uses Helicopters..."

 :rules:


----------



## Strike

I didn't realize helicopters were considered armament.  I know they can CARRY armament but, unless you're talking kamikaze action, would really be considered armament.


----------



## Occam

Strike said:
			
		

> I didn't realize helicopters were considered armament.  I know they can CARRY armament but, unless you're talking kamikaze action, would really be considered armament.



What she said.   

While I have a healthy respect for those who fly thousands of parts in close formation, I wouldn't really call them "armament" in the same sense as a 5"54 round or a Sea Sparrow.


----------



## Occam

Well, whaddya know.  You can edit Military terms.  I learned something new today and I'm taking the rest of the day off as a reward.   ;D


----------



## Neill McKay

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahhh, I thought you were dismayed by the obvious absence of a comma after "Vessel," given the presence of the modifier "which."
> 
> _Clearly_, it must be either a non-restrictive clause -- "A Destroyer Type Vessel, which uses Helicopters...," or a restrictive clause --  "A Destroyer Type Vessel that uses Helicopters..."



Restrictive, because not all destroyers are DDHs!

Nice to see someone else who knows the difference, in a world where English is going so quickly to the dogs.


----------



## HavokFour

Strike said:
			
		

> I didn't realize helicopters were considered armament.  I know they can CARRY armament but, unless you're talking kamikaze action, would really be considered armament.



Think _lawnmower_.

 ;D


----------



## Pusser

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Restrictive, because not all destroyers are DDHs!
> 
> Nice to see someone else who knows the difference, in a world where English is going so quickly to the dogs.



Yes, it's restrictive, but I have to say it requires further modification as a form of the verb "to be able to," needs to be inserted.  A DDH is a destroyer that can operate a helicopter.  There are plenty of DDHs out there that do not currently carry helicopters, but they are still classed as DDHs because they have all the necessary fittings (flight deck being the big one, among others).  

Of course in Canada, the point is currently moot because all of our destroyers are DDGs!  :nod:


----------



## eurowing

When I was a youngling (14ish) , I recall being told it was Destroyer, Destroyer Escort (DDE) Destroyer, Destroyer Helicopter (DDH).  I wish I could remember the circumstance, but I do clearly remember the explanation as being sort of logical as typical military nomenclature. Just a memory, not food for an argument.


----------



## Occam

eurowing said:
			
		

> When I was a youngling (14ish) , I recall being told it was Destroyer, Destroyer Escort (DDE) Destroyer, Destroyer Helicopter (DDH).  I wish I could remember the circumstance, but I do clearly remember the explanation as being sort of logical as typical military nomenclature. Just a memory, not food for an argument.



Well, that makes sense, until you run up against DD, FF, SS or BB classes....and Destroyer, Destroyer sounds a little redundant redundant.


----------



## Pusser

DDH, DDG, FFH, CVN, SSBN, SSK, etc are not abbreviations or acronyms per se (i.e. the letters don't necessarily stand for specific words in a specific order).  They are simply codes used by NATO to designate different types of vessels.  I'm guessing the system came about in the early days of computers when there was a requirement to keep the number of characters used to a minimum.  Although some letters do seem to correspond to specific words (in English), that is not always the case.  For example, I don't think a "YAG" is a "yard auxiliary, guided missile."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Suggest you look up this site, even though from the US: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm

As you can see, DDH only means "Destroyer with an assigned Helicopter"

And DD is a general designator for "Destroyer" in use since 1921. That is all.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Pusser said:
			
		

> DDH, DDG, FFH, CVN, SSBN, SSK, etc are not abbreviations or acronyms per se (i.e. the letters don't necessarily stand for specific words in a specific order).  They are simply codes used by NATO to designate different types of vessels.  I'm guessing the system came about in the early days of computers when there was a requirement to keep the number of characters used to a minimum.  Although some letters do seem to correspond to specific words (in English), that is not always the case.  For example, I don't think a "YAG" is a "yard auxiliary, guided missile."




Is this (at least part of) the explanation? And is the two letter designation DD, FF etc, related, in some way, to old two letter designation like CB = battle cruiser and CL = light cruiser?

Sorry, I've strated out of my lane, but the origins of acronyms and terms (like _unified_ vs. _integrated_ and _combined_ vs. _joint_) interests me ... a little bit.


----------



## Pusser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this (at least part of) the explanation? And is the two letter designation DD, FF etc, related, in some way, to old two letter designation like CB = battle cruiser and CL = light cruiser?
> 
> Sorry, I've strated out of my lane, but the origins of acronyms and terms (like _unified_ vs. _integrated_ and _combined_ vs. _joint_) interests me ... a little bit.



I would have to say that this is the best explanation I've seen on the subject.  The system obviously has roots that are older than I realized.  I was always told that it was a NATO coding system (and it is now), but can see that it has its roots in the USN (surprise, surprise).

As for FF, DD, etc, my understanding is that two-letter codes are used for ships that have no other defining features (rare nowadays because DDGs are way cooler than DDs).  In other words, a DD is simply a standard destoryer, but a DDG is a guided missile destroyer.  One interesting thing is that these designations can change,  The IROQUOIS class ships were originally DDHs, but after a refit, became DDGs.  This is despite the fact that they are still helicopter capable (DDGs are way cooler than DDHs).


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Agree. By this def, does the following hold true? - Does this mean a DDH not carrying a helicopter is no longer a DDH...and it no longer has a primary weapon?


----------



## Pusser

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Agree. By this def, does the following hold true? - Does this mean a DDH not carrying a helicopter is no longer a DDH...and it no longer has a primary weapon?



I don't think so.  Due to a shortage of helicopters, we've often had ships that did not regularly carry them.  We didn't change their designators (they kept their "H"), presumably because they were still capable of carrying helicopters and could have one assigned if required.

Think about it.  A DDG doesn't become a DD when all its missiles have been fired.  It's not like Air Force 1, which isn't called that when the US president is not on board (i.e. it's just a plain old jumbo jet).


----------



## Donaill

CSED

Continuously 
Supporting
Every
Department

 >


----------



## Pusser

I think it's more like, CSE:

Constantly 
Sleeping 
Engineer

They usually only wake up (when kicked) to fix the projector.  >


----------



## Donaill

Pusser said:
			
		

> I think it's more like, CSE:
> 
> Constantly
> Sleeping
> Engineer
> 
> They usually only wake up (when kicked) to fix the projector.  >



No need to get abuisve.


----------



## Pusser

Donaill said:
			
		

> No need to get abuisve.



It's as gentle a kick as one sailor can give another. :


----------



## Donaill

lol Navy love. 

Futility : Having a list of "priorities" become usurped by a new list of "priorities" only to get flack for not completing the first set of "priorities". My head hurts now.  :2c: :facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

BOHICA


----------



## Navalsnpr

Pusser said:
			
		

> I think it's more like, CSE:
> 
> Constantly
> Sleeping
> Engineer
> 
> They usually only wake up (when kicked) to fix the projector.  >



You mean CSED

Combat
Supply
Engineering
Deck

We support all departments!


----------



## Occam

I see today's Military Word of the Day is:

CFSIOC: Canadian Forces Signal Intelligence Operations Centre

Now I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I think the proper acronym is *CFSOC: Canadian Forces Sigint Operations Centre*.

Any secret squirrels around to verify?

In other news, we can no longer edit the Military Word of the Day?


----------



## aesop081

CFSOC

http://www.img.forces.gc.ca/org/cfi-goi/cfsoc-cosfc-eng.asp


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Thanks, the term is now fixed.

The edit button is only available to Staff and Subscribers, and you have to be logged in to see it. I just ran a test and it should be working OK.


----------



## Occam

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Thanks, the term is now fixed.
> 
> The edit button is only available to Staff and Subscribers, and you have to be logged in to see it. I just ran a test and it should be working OK.



I'm a subscriber, yet I'm not seeing an edit button on the MWOD - although it's clear that at some point in the past, I did!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Should be working a bit better now...


----------



## Occam

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Should be working a bit better now...



Indeed it does, thanks.


----------



## Journeyman

I can't seem to find the edit button either, but today's word reads:

reco: reconnaissance


Recce? Yes.  Recon? American, not us.  Reco? Never heard of it.


----------



## George Wallace

Rico Suave perhaps?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

I believe reco is the French version of recce. It just wasn't tagged as a French term in the database, but it is now.


----------

