Warship classification

[mark22w]

With the ever increasing size and displacement of modern warships when does a Frigate become a Destroyer and a Destroyer a Cruiser? Appreciate the traditional difference in roles however this seems blurred when emphasis on ASW becomes less and ‘Land Attack’ or LCS roles come to the fore. Then there’s always BMD.

With the US DD(X) program projected at 14,000 tons and the potential fire power to replace an Iowa class Battleship, I’m not sure how it remains a Destroyer yet the Ticonderoga class (9,600 tons) armed with TLAM’s a Cruiser?

In the UK displacement is also increasing with the anti-air T45s displacing 7,300 tons (Destroyers), 2,000 tons greater than the T42 they replace. Early plans for the FC65 Frigate suggested 6,000 plus tons – greater than existing RN Destroyers.

The US reclassified its ships in 1975, however is it time to look at this again? The US Cruiser and Destroyer tonnage appears to be increasing at a faster rate than European or indeed any other nation, with different roles and capabilities the USN is in a league of its own. Though what the USN wants and gets might yet be very different...

I'm interested if anyone has thoughts on future warship classification...

Thanks

 

[rickusn]

The 1975 reclasification was a politcal act that for the most part tried to allay fears about the supposed Cruiser Gap between the USN and USSR.

The Leahy and Belknap classes converted were actually modern large destroyers that were precursers to the Spruance/KIdd/TIconderoga classes.

The cruiser classification for the Ticonderoga class(originally typed DDG and built on the Spruance class DD hull) came about because of its high cost and superior Command & control (C4ISR new term) capabilities among other attributes.

The Burke DDG program was to grow into a similar ship beginning with the 19th unit (version III) this did not happen for cost reasons and the compromise versiion (IIA) supplanted versions I/II on the building ways.

The DDX while quite capable will be ;lacking somewhat in sensors and C4ISR capabilities. The CGX is programmed to be a very much upgraded version.

Hence one called destroyer and the other cruiser.

Another way to look at is that a cruiser is far more capable to act autonomously where a a destroyer is more of a team player normally lacking the full spectrum of capabilities or having those capabilities in a somewhat degraded form.

Of course when looking(comparing) at specific classes whether it be a modern ship classified as a frigate, destroyer or cruiser the distinction can often be very subtle and quite blurred.

But no one has come up with a better classification system that would be widely accepted so we stay with a system that has marginally evlolved over the last 100 years or so of modern times with its roots in a classification system that predates the early 1900's by many centuries.

 

[Sea Toby]

I prefer the British classification method, which basically involves whether a warship has an area defense anti-air missiles versus short range self defense anti-air missiles. If it has area defense missiles its a destroyer and if it has self defense missiles its a frigate. Size matters not, although a larger ship will carry more missiles, especially larger area defense missiles. I think the British have it right for the rest of the world..... except for maybe America.

The American Navy has built recently based on the same hull Spruance class destroyers without area air defense and Ticenderoga cruisers with area air defense. American destroyers tend to be built larger than other navies, mainly because they have further to go to reach their deployed areas, and especially so in the Pacific.

On the other hand American frigates are of similar size as other navies, although with only one prop instead of two. America considers ships the size of frigates very vulnerable to torpedoes, can be knocked out of action with only one torpedo hit, and therefore doesn't build frigates with two props. Of course, in a navy with 100,000 ton carriers, 10,000 ton cruisers, and 8,000 ton destroyers, frigates of 4,000 tons or so aren't as highly held in warfighting capability. Other navies, which cannot afford 100,000 ton carriers and 10,000 ton cruisers, much less 8,000 ton destroyers, take better care of their 3-7,000 ton ships, whether frigates or destroyers.

Another mess is the difference today between a corvette and an OPV. Both are smaller than frigates of similar size, with the corvettes having more armament, a short range frigate, while an OPV having less armament, more of a fishery protection patrol vessel than a warship.

 

[Lucasnz]

I think in relation to Frigates & Destoryers at least there maybe a move back to the prewar situation, where there were no frigates. Many of the new designs of frigates are similar in tonnage to destroyers, and many of the core sensors are similar in range range and capability.

I agree that the British system of classification, based on local (Frigate) vs area defence (Destroyer) is better, but the distinction is blurred now. For example the ANZAC Frigate, can take a SM2 in the Mk 41 VLS.

 

[rickusn]

Actually the so-called British system has suffered tortuous evolution as well.

The 1950's completed Daring class destroyers similar to the USN Gearings were rated as "light cruisers".

Frigate in RN parlance meant a single-mission ship whose primary sensors and weapons for that single-mission were on a par with destroyers.

Sloop on the other hand denoted a multi-purpose ship albeit of 2nd rate capabilities to a destroyer.

Both designations had performance envelopes much less than destroyers ie speed, range etc.

The designation Sloop was dropped as a political expediency because in the late 1950's the UK was committed to providing 70 frigates to NATO and this was seen as quick way to increase frigate #'s.

The County class guided missle destroyers were actually cruisers in RN practice that were typed as destroyers so as to get approval from the bean-counters.

The Type 42 guided missile destroyers were typed because not only were they nominally replacing the older destroyers of the Battle, "C" and Daring but the failed Bristol class carrier escort program(Type 82 which btw was in the general-purpose frigate series).

The much larger Type 22 Broadsword class and the smaller follow-on Type 23 Duke class frigates were so typed because they were replacing ships typed as frigates in particular the Leander class.

In fact the Leander class saw the evolution of the frigate designation from a single-purpose definition to a multi-purpose definition.

 

[mark22w]

Thanks to all, very informative. Looking at non US fleets I agree there is considerable crossover between destroyers and frigates that are often categorised for political rather than capability purposes.

For a number of European nations ‘frigate’ now seems to represent any major new surface combatant (excluding carriers and assault ships) regardless of role or displacement

I think for the RN it’s a question of retaining role based designations without the prospect of cruisers and have to say I’d rather see the T45 destroyers delivered with added punch whatever they need to be called to secure funds from the Treasury…

Interesting to look at Australia’s AWD programme as an example of a traditional anti air destroyer with the ANZAC frigates being more of a multi purpose unit.

 

[rickusn]

"Interesting to look at Australia’s AWD programme as an example of a traditional anti air destroyer with the ANZAC frigates being more of a multi purpose unit."

AFAIK the new AWD ships are multi-purpose. Not so?

IMHO the ANZAC frigates(along with the other MEKO 200 variants) are a perfect example of the type of ship first made popular by the RN Leander class.

And the AWD a perfect example of what a destroyer should be that was first seen in the USN Belknap class. The somewhat larger size over the AWD of course being dictated by the steam propulsion plant and to a lesser extent the cumbersome missile handling/launching/storage installation.

This type ship evolved through the Spruance/Kidd/Tico classes. Reverted to a more traditional type such as the Cooontz/CF Adams classes in the Burke I/II and back again to the Burke IIA.

The AWD(along with the European multi-purpose AD ships) again IMHO are more in line with a traditional(although evolved) destroyer concept. But even they will have enhanced C4ISR capabilities that traditioanly have only been fitted to cruiser type ships.

While the USN has opted to take the concept and outsize it to the point where there is not really adequate nomenclature to describe them.

Again IMHO (DL) Destroyer Leader was in many ways a better description than Cruiser.

But then because of the compromise(along with the political need) Knox/OHP classes(WWII destoyer replacements as stated earlier) which were sort of a cross between a Leander and a Belknap plus the need to differentiate the F.Sherman/Coontz/ CF Adams from the two types led to the CG(N)/DD&DDG/FF&FFG redesignations of 1975. Not to mention where to place the new nuclear-powered escorts of the California and Virginia classes.

Plus no other navy really used the Destroyer Escort/Destroyer Leader designation. Not to mention the USN while using the DL(G) designation actually called those ships frigates based more on an older historical interpretaion of the frigate designation than was being used by the RN.

It can seem confusing especially now with Germany/Netherlands/Spain designating their new ships as frigates.