# Destroyer/Or Frigate



## guns_and_roses

What type of ship is better to serve on? What are more capable, What type of ship is most deployed? Any answers are welcome, thanks for the help!


----------



## jollyjacktar

That is all a matter of opinion.  Some of us like CPFs, some 280's and others like Tanker life.  Each platform has its ups and downs dependant upon your trade and how well you sail.  Each of the girls have their own way of doing things, and their own way of moving at sea.  
I have always been a Tanker guy pretty well and like this lifestyle.  I look at the others on the warships and say it's not really for me, too fussy and pusser.  Others I know, look at me and say the same thing from their side of the fence that they think the Tankers suck.  In the long run, the CPFs will be around longer than the 280's and are the future for present.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Deployment wise...it depends on whats going on in the world. If they want flagship capabilities they send a destroyer, if they want a general purpose warship they send a frigate. If they need to send a Task Group they generally send a 280 plus up to a couple of frigates and maybe an AOR. 

They don't generally ask you what type of ship you want to serve on, you are placed where needed.


----------



## STONEY

The crew is the most important factor. A good CO,XO and a crew thats works together and  have a happy ship make all the difference in the world. On the other hand if that certain spark is lacking and your ship is not a happy one ,life can be really miserable. I've been on several of each type and its hard to pin down what exactly what makes it work but some do and some don't and the difference is quite remarkable.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

STONEY said:
			
		

> The crew is the most important factor. A good CO,XO and a crew thats works together and  have a happy ship make all the difference in the world. On the other hand if that certain spark is lacking and your ship is not a happy one ,life can be really miserable. I've been on several of each type and its hard to pin down what exactly what makes it work but some do and some don't and the difference is quite remarkable.
> 
> Cheers


Agree 100%...too bad so many forget how important the crew is but it happens.


----------



## Springroll

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> They don't generally ask you what type of ship you want to serve on, you are placed where needed.



Here they do ask you what your preference is (CPF, 280 etc), but if you get it or not, is another story!


----------



## SoF

They never asked me what class of ship I wanted, just the coast I prefer which didn't matter anyways because I knew I was going east. I'm very happy being on a 280; before next year I'll have a gulf tour under my belt.


----------



## Springroll

SoF said:
			
		

> They never asked me what class of ship I wanted, just the coast I prefer



Maybe it is just the way my staff were, but every class that has come through the section in the last few years has been asked.


----------



## Donaill

They, the Div Office, usually asks whether you want 280 or Hlaifax and if you have a preference for a certain ship. Though it is just a small input because if you put down Charlottetown and the Toronto needs a comm tech, well off to the Toronto you go.


----------



## copecowboy

Preserver is awesome, never been on a 280, didn't like the frigs


----------



## Jack Nastyface

I'm a "280 Lady", having served 12 yrs in ATH and 2 yrs in IRO. I did the 2nd Gulf War in MTL and she was a comfortable ship. The only trouble with 280s is that they are a command and control platform. So, invariably, you get the commodore and his staff (aka the "Good Ideas Club") onboard looking over your shoulders. And for the OP-you never serve "on" a ship. You serve "in" a ship.


----------



## Harley Sailor

Jack Nastyface said:
			
		

> I'm a "280 Lady", having served 12 yrs in ATH and 2 yrs in IRO. I did the 2nd Gulf War in MTL and she was a comfortable ship. The only trouble with 280s is that they are a command and control platform. So, invariably, you get the commodore and his staff (aka the "Good Ideas Club") onboard looking over your shoulders. And for the OP-you never serve "on" a ship. You serve "in" a ship.



With 30 years in the navy, and having lived with my father while he was in the navy, I've never once heard anyone say they sailed "in" a ship.  When ever I'm asked it's "what ships have you sailed on".

As for what ship is better, the old steamers were the best. It was a harder life, but it pulled the crews closer together.  When the 280's came out the Ladies all left for them.  When the CPFs came out it was the steamer crews who crewed them.  This ment it was the tight knit crews who first sailed on them, making them the best. For the ride, I would say CPFs are far better. As for crews, everyone has been right, it depends on the CO, XO, and Cox'n.  One thing to look at is that the 280s will be the first to be changed out so their crews will most likely get the new ships.


----------



## Jack Nastyface

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> With 30 years in the navy, and having lived with my father while he was in the navy, I've never once heard anyone say they sailed "in" a ship.  When ever I'm asked it's "what ships have you sailed on".


Harley, maybe you should have paid a little more attention to correct naval terminology during your 30 years in the mob. As quoted on the Canadian Tribal Association web site: http://jproc.ca/cta/theships.html

"Past and present sailors of the CTA must have _*sailed in * _ at least one of twelve particular ships to qualify as 'ordinary' members. The ships are listed in alphabetical order which comprise the original eight Tribal class destroyers built during World War 2 and the four Iroquois class successors."

If you would like a little Dog Watch instruction in correct naval terminology and slang, I would be happy to oblige. :


----------



## Harley Sailor

Jack Nastyface said:
			
		

> Harley, may you should have paid a little more attention to correct naval terminology during your 30 years in the mob. As quoted on the Canadian Tribal Association web site: http://jproc.ca/cta/theships.html
> 
> "Past and present sailors of the CTA must have _*sailed in * _ at least one of twelve particular ships to qualify as 'ordinary' members. The ships are listed in alphabetical order which comprise the original eight Tribal class destroyers built during World War 2 and the four Iroquois class successors."
> 
> If you would like a little Dog Watch instruction in correct naval terminology and slang, I would be happy to oblige. :



So because one site says it's true then you beleive it...kool


----------



## Jack Nastyface

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> So because one site says it's true then you beleive it...kool


Well, perhaps 15 years of sea time as a MARS officer gives me a wee bit of insight. From your "Verbal Warning" I see that you are one of the problem children here. Oh, you might want to brush up on your spelling as well as your naval terminology.


----------



## aesop081

Both of you move on...........theres plenty of verbal warnings available to go around.

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Jack Nastyface

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Both of you move on...........theres plenty of verbal warnings available to go around.
> 
> Milnet.ca staff


Rgr, out.


----------



## Harley Sailor

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Both of you move on...........theres plenty of verbal warnings available to go around.
> 
> Milnet.ca staff



No thank you, I already have one.

But I just can't let this drop with out one last comment.
We sail In the Navy and On(-Board) ships.


----------



## MARS

1. Maybe we should start a new thread on the useage of "in" vs. "on"...
2. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I do believe the proper useage is "in"...derived from the term being "borne in a ship".  It has nothing to do with "serving", "sailing" or being "posted" to a ship.  However, it has commonly fallen out of useage and now most people say "on", simply because they haven't been taught the proper usage.  It is similar to using the definitive article "the" before ship's names, as in "I sailed on in _the_ HALIFAX".  Makes no sense, sounds funny, but lots of people say it that way.  Ship's names are proper nouns - they do not require "the" before them. It is like using "the" before the word "McDonalds" (as in the fast food chain).  You don't say "I am going to _the_ McDonalds" - you simply say "I am going to McDonalds"


----------



## Jack Nastyface

I like the cut of your jib, MARS!


----------



## Rodahn

I believe that we are at this point already...... :deadhorse:


----------



## Donaill

"It is similar to using the definitive article "the" before ship's names, as in "I sailed on in the HALIFAX".  Makes no sense, sounds funny, but lots of people say it that way.  Ship's names are proper nouns - they do not require "the" before them. It is like using "the" before the word "McDonalds""

Must add fuel to fire and derail this whole topic. The can be used with proper nouns and often are with regards to Clan names. Examples are The O'Nieils, The MacDonalds, The Bruces, The Llewllyns and the dreaded, and much reviled The Campbells.

 > > >


----------



## Edward Campbell

Yes, because that's the general rule for collectives.

One might be able to say, for example, that "_N_ applied to all of the _Ottawas_: the C Class destroyer - H60, lost in 1942; the second Ottawa - H31, credited with three U-boat kills; the Cold War destroyer - DDE229;  and the new frigate - FFH341."

The four ships become a collective and "the" appliers. But, broadly, MARS is correct.


----------



## Neill McKay

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> No thank you, I already have one.
> 
> But I just can't let this drop with out one last comment.
> We sail In the Navy and On(-Board) ships.



Do you live in a house, or on it?  Same kind of thing.

I suspect the use of "on a ship" is an Americanism, along with "The HMCS so-and-so", both of which I imagine crept into Canadian English via Star Trek.


----------



## Jack Nastyface

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Do you live in a house, or on it?  Same kind of thing.
> 
> I suspect the use of "on a ship" is an Americanism, along with "The HMCS so-and-so", both of which I imagine crept into Canadian English via Star Trek.


Bingo!! We have a winner. ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

A sailor is carried on the muster roll of a ship is he not?  At any rate perhaps the denizens of the Wardroom are more correct in their daily venacular as compaired to the Great Unwashed but it is "on" not "in" that I hear used in conversation more often from both sides of the fence.  I don't believe it will be going away or becoming more pusser anytime soon.


----------



## Harley Sailor

I guess you are right JollyJacktar, it all depends on who you talk to.

You ride on a train, on a plane, and in a boat/ship.  Anything you board is considered getting on, not getting in. If you hang around a cruse ship you will be told to get on before it sails, not get in. Same at the train station and airport.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't care what you are in/on, as long as you are not picking distances off of the longitudes and opening a seacock to see what happens.


----------



## Jack Nastyface

Some of the naval types in Slackers may have heard of CPO1 "Buster" Brown. Buster was the Formation Chief in Halifax in the early '90s and also served as technical consultant on the film "U-571 Widowmaker" as he had a long and illustrious career in O-Boats. I asked his take on which is proper naval terminology, sailing or serving "on"/"in" a ship. Here is his response:

"My take.........

In the engine room, in the Ops Room, in the cafeteria, in the wardroom, down in the mess.............

On the bridge, back on the AX, on the uppers, up on the FX, ................

As the function of a ship's workings are internal in order to Float, Move and Fight, tells me that sailors deal with their workings "in" them rather than "on" them. 

.................and let us not forget those "Who Go Down to the Sea in Ships!"

Buster
P.S. Could you imagine anyone standing "on" the fore casing of a boat down at 300 ft. while everybody else "in" it is doing a verification muster???" 

I rest my case.


----------



## Harley Sailor

Well it was bound to happen. 

I was at a retirement ceremony today for a fine sailor with 25 years service.  At the ceremony they all talked about what a great guy he was and how great it was to sail on ships with him and work in the school with him.  Yes "on" ships.  There was the DIV Commander, the school CPO1, the DIV CPO2, and a host of others. Not one said they sailed "in" a ship with him.  The scroll he was presented listed the "Ships he sailed on" and the shadow box had a plaque with a list of the "Ships he sailed on".  The scroll was presented by a CPO2 (not the DIV CPO2) and the shadow box plaque was made by FMF Cape Scot.

Now out of all them people why would none of them use "in".

Must be an East Coast Navy thing


----------



## Neill McKay

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> Now out of all them people why would none of them use "in".



This is an issue no different from a hundred others in the English language.  Lots of Canadians -- including at least one judge I heard -- talk about being "on the witness stand" when in fact there is no such thing in a Canadian courtroom (but there is a witness box).  Lots of people address parliamentarians as "Mr. Prime Minister", "Mr. Minister", or "Mr. Premier" when none of those people are supposed to have a "Mr." in front of them (it's just "Good Morning, Prime Minister").

We live in a time and place when an awful lot of people don't care much about the finer details of the language.  Some of those people are in the navy, and some of them say things like "on a ship".  Such is life.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Or any other living language for that matter.  Terms, rules and vernacular change over time for many factors I suppose.  They could include cultural influences from another society, lack of useage or the meanings and intent change over time.  Yes, I do agree it can also be attributed to laziness for some, but also lack of education in others.

At the end of the day if a word or phrase usage changes overall for use by the masses and continues to do so, then it will in fact be the new norm will it not.  At one time being "gay" meant to be happy, not a person of an alternative lifestyle as it does now.  Yes, I know the two meanings are still around but no one and I mean no one uses the happy version anywhere.  So it has indeed changed.

Otherwise, one will have to change over to a dead language such as Latin if one wants their language rules, meanings and pronunciation's set in stone.


----------



## Rodahn

Hmmmm, this thread seems to have drifted from the original question of "upon which vessel it is better to serve, a CPF or destroyer?" In the mean time  :argument:


----------



## Sub_Guy

I love being gay.

These threads are getting out of hand, we have a CAPS, No CAPS ships name thread, and this IN or ON...   So what does it mean when someone says "I was onboard for that incident".   Its not inboard.  Does it really matter?

I think we need a new section on here for these types of threads that just keep going nowhere.


----------



## Danjanou

Ok fun police here. I'm far from an SME on this subject so have stayed out of it. However I am an SME in English according to my old teacher. Back on topic please boys and girls.

milnet.staff


----------



## Harley Sailor

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Ok fun police here. I'm far from an SME on this subject so have stayed out of it. However I am an SME in English according to my old teacher. Back on topic please boys and girls.
> 
> milnet.staff



Should not that be "about this subject"   ;D  >


----------



## Danjanou

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> Should not that be "about this subject"   ;D  >



Don't push it ( note no smilies)


----------



## nickanick

What kind of missions would destroyers or frigates get deploy for? 
I'm guessing since destroyers consume more resources, they have less chances to deploy comparing to frigates? 
Sorry if I'm wrong.


----------



## GAP

For god's sake LOOK IT UP....if you want information google it!!


----------



## aesop081

nickanick said:
			
		

> I'm wrong.



You are.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

nickanick said:
			
		

> What kind of missions would destroyers or frigates get deploy for?
> I'm guessing since destroyers consume more resources, they have less chances to deploy comparing to frigates?
> Sorry if I'm wrong.



Answers given in this very thread.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Pusser

RCN destroyers and frigates have different roles.  Which one gets deployed depends on what the task requires.  The resources consumed in  process are part of the cost of doing business and are certainly discussed while making the decision, but they are not the defining factor.


----------



## NavyShooter

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> These threads are getting out of hand, we have a CAPS, No CAPS ships name thread, and this IN or ON...   So what does it mean when someone says "I was onboard for that incident".   Its not inboard.  Does it really matter?



INBOARD can have a whole different meaning amigo....(necro-post but hey, good for fun)

As for deployments?  Well, note that both 280's and CPF's have been used as command platforms.  

NS


----------



## gashbag

Back to the original topic.....

Having sailed on both 280 and 330 class of ships I have found the following:
280's
- are a more family orientated crew because the same people keep getting posted back based on qualifications (think Cheers where everybody knows your name)
- sleeping arrangements are of lesser quality ( bunked up with more people and a lot of leaky systems in the mess decks think JP5 back aft)
- rough ride in the weather but fun if your not sick ( kinda like a cork)
- "command platforms" therefore, lots of sailing with staff weanies

330's
- accomodations are awesome, small messdecks sometimes with carpet!!
- better main cave, larger with actual couches to relax on and take in a movie
- used as chaff when a 280 is in company
- has a "puck" maker vice the great spitting "mikey" on a 280

There is more but can't give it all away


----------



## FSTO

Speaking of Mikey, it was really nice when we were coming back from a boarding and it puked all over us as we were starting to climb the jumping ladder! Good times!


----------



## gashbag

FSTO said:
			
		

> Speaking of Mikey, it was really nice when we were coming back from a boarding and it puked all over us as we were starting to climb the jumping ladder! Good times!



Ya nothing better than sending a seasicky back aft for a turn with mikey  >


----------



## Grimey

FSTO said:
			
		

> Speaking of Mikey, it was really nice when we were coming back from a boarding and it puked all over us as we were starting to climb the jumping ladder! Good times!



Remember when we where feeding the beast between boardings?  I still have nightmares about ripping up cardboard, sorting through paper towel and finding the occasional "black water rat" 

Mikey is still there on ALG, though it was tits up when I came off last Jul.

On another note, I can't believe our part in APOLLO was almost 10 yrs ago...


----------



## FSTO

Grimey said:
			
		

> Remember when we where feeding the beast between boardings?  I still have nightmares about ripping up cardboard, sorting through paper towel and finding the occasional "black water rat"
> 
> Miley is still there on ALG, though it was tits up when I came off last Jul.
> 
> On another note, I can't believe our part in APOLLO was almost 10 yrs ago...



Quit reminding me!


----------



## Invader

Myself was on FF's and FFG's, but as an Airdale I love being on a carrier!!


----------



## GreenMarine

did someone say Pucks, our Coxn was anti-nudy everything, if someone was caught with one it was taken, thankfully it made its way to garbage disposal so we made "Porno Pucks" when melting the plastic.

I myself enjoyed the Frigates compaired with the 280s it was clearer and no as tense ( I liked the staff Wienes comment above.)

I didnt get to explore the tanker much but my job is supply so on the tanker my buddy felt he was worth a dine a dozen, where on the Frigate there were maybe a hand full of us so out of trade respect was there...add the fact I was mostly the laundry guy so I was one of those guys you just didnt mess with unless you like smeeling like diesel.


----------



## AirDet

The nice thing about being AirDet aka Zoomie, I get to sail them all. I found they all have benefits and challenges. Personally, I think it comes down to the crew. I love Calgary and Algonkatraz. The crews certainly liked to have fun. I was stranded with Calgary in Singapore in 99. You couldn't find a more interesting bunch to be stuck with... loads of laughs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

In my limited sea time I've done all three, and at one point had 3 different COs, 4 XOs, 4 HODs and 3 CHODs on the same ship in a few years.  One thing I learned there was the class of ship doesn't mean much for how much I enjoyed it; it's all about the crew.  280s are not as comfortable as CPFs, but a CPF with a bad crew/command team/department/section will still ruin your day.  Tankers had tons of room (didn't hit my head once!) but can be a huge amount of work to keep running.  Swapping out the command team completely changed the whole mood of the ship several times (down and up), and you also noticed a big difference when a few of the eternally smiling happy go lucky types didn't make a trip for whatever reason.  Not sure if army/ air force are the same, but when you are within 400 odd feet of the same people in the middle of the ocean for weeks at a time, the effects of different personalities seemed to have  noticeable and direct impacts pretty quickly.  Basically, I think it's all about the crew; you can still have a lot of fun, be very effective and a lot of good memories with the right group even if you're on a rusty old scow (or digging ditches, hauling boxes, whatever).  

One thing I will say was that some of the frigates smelled absolutely awful; I had to come home and strip off my clothes in the basement and put all my kit in the wash right away and have a shower before the wife would come near me on one in particular.  Some kind of deep fried garbage fusion thing happening in the recirculating air, it was pretty terrible.  And that's coming from someone who has previously worked in slaughterhouses and spent time in sewage treatment plants and neither of those were even close.  At least 280s have the identifiable smell of diesel.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Funny you say that about the CPF smell.  My wife has complained the past couple of trips when I got into the car for the drive home that I smell of deep fried "something".  She asked me if I had been hanging around the fryers or what?  On the Tanker, I smelled of fuel but then that was what I was dealing with on a typical day.  No bitches about that.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Funny you say that about the CPF smell.  My wife has complained the past couple of trips when I got into the car for the drive home that I smell of deep fried "something".  She asked me if I had been hanging around the fryers or what?  On the Tanker, I smelled of fuel but then that was what I was dealing with on a typical day.  No bitches about that.



 ;D

She is worried about your weight.   Fuel isn't as likely for you to put on weight as French Fries are.   >


----------



## GreenMarine

I remember are cooks on the Cal were so good, there was always something to eat, didnt have to spend a dine at the canteen.

Breakfast > Soup > Lunch > Supper > and the Late Night Meal (left overs) 

And being supply and helping bring up the food, they'll be like you try this and tell me what you think....most of the time something yummy.


----------



## AirDet

GreenMarine said:
			
		

> I remember are cooks on the Cal were so good, there was always something to eat, didnt have to spend a dine at the canteen.
> 
> Breakfast > Soup > Lunch > Supper > and the Late Night Meal (left overs)
> 
> And being supply and helping bring up the food, they'll be like you try this and tell me what you think....most of the time something yummy.



I loved sailing the Cal. You're right, they did put a little extra into the food... and parties. I wonder if they still have the bull.

The frigates do have that McDonalds smell.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I found it varied; some of them weren't too bad, but the one in particular was just appalling.  I used to walk home from the dockyard along Barrington to get to the north end of Halifax, and it took me a week to realize the smell (that I thought was from the harbour) was actually coming off of my uniform.

'Deep fried garbage' was the only way I can describe it.  It was a terrible combination of two week old gash that some lazy bugger scraped their plate off into mixed with old deep fat frier grease.  Guessing something in the HVAC was messed up and the garbage stores air was mixing into the main citadel.

After that it was a relief to go back to the 280s, where I just came home smelling like good honest diesel.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I always thought OTT smelled the worst of all the frigates.  My gear off gassed for weeks after coming home from her.

REG seems to smell the best...


----------



## AirDet

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I always thought OTT smelled the worst of all the frigates.  My gear off gassed for weeks after coming home from her.
> 
> REG seems to smell the best...



You're right. 341 always seemed to continuously vent black water gasses from right above the Howda. Even in the flats she smelled like a cesspool. It was as if the fishies did it to the flight deck on purpose. Of all the ships I sailed, that one was the worst. Crappy food, Capt Charge-a-lot, and it floats like a streamer, just some of the things I could've done without on that boat.


----------



## Pusser

AirDet said:
			
		

> You're right. 341 always seemed to continuously vent black water gasses from right above the Howda. Even in the flats she smelled like a cesspool. It was as if the fishies did it to the flight deck on purpose. Of all the ships I sailed, that one was the worst. Crappy food, Capt Charge-a-lot, *and it floats like a streamer*, just some of the things I could've done without on that boat.



What does that mean?  Ships either float or they don't.  Generally, floating is considered a good thing.


----------



## GreenMarine

Pusser said:
			
		

> What does that mean?  Ships either float or they don't.  Generally, floating is considered a good thing.



Floating is Generally Good (unless your a sub), however like a Car just because it can move doesn't make it a good ride. I've heard this expression before some of the Streamers had leaks, perminate bends to the hull (Terra Nova I believe), and other things that just made a sail less enjoyable.

I personally thought Ott was ok, mind you I didn't sail on her I just did along side stuff, but I did get some 'tude from her coxn while on the jetty letting her ropes go. Dont remember what it was for...I probably didn't care either, I was there for a job, and did it period.


----------



## AirDet

Pusser said:
			
		

> What does that mean?  Ships either float or they don't.  Generally, floating is considered a good thing.



You really want me to express my opinion of that POS we call a ship? Okay here it is. Ottawa was a garbage scow. On the glass smooth water of the Lower Arabian Gulf she'd roll like a dog with a bad case of flees. Her movement reminded me very much of the Nipple-gone (a steamer). The thing about being airdet is you eventually get to sail all the ships. I proudly wear the gold anchor and consider myself to be as much a sailor as any other. After 20 years working both onboard and alongside, I think I've earned the right to judge them.

I hope my observation doesn't offend you but it is as I see it.


----------

