The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Frigate and Destroyer
Win Z Soe    9/4/2004 4:56:20 PM
What are the different characteristics and purposes between Frigates and Destroyers in Navy?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Marcus    RE:Frigate and Destroyer   9/4/2004 5:04:12 PM
i never heart of flying frigates :)
 
Quote    Reply

T800m101    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/4/2004 5:14:43 PM
Hey bud this is the fighters, bombers, and recon section..
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/5/2004 9:01:40 AM
Well yeah he's got the wrong section, but the difference from a frigate and a destroyer is that a frigate is a single role platform and a destroyer is a multi-role platform. However most navies have their own interpretations... and I may actually hae got it the wrong way round. :D
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/5/2004 10:55:37 AM
That's not even true. The distinction between destroyer, frigate, cruiser etc. is quite meaningless and has been for decades.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/5/2004 11:00:20 AM
In the RN a Destroyer is the single role platform and the Frigate the multirole platform. other navies do it differently. It's when it refers to size and displacement that the distinction becomes pointless.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/5/2004 11:52:54 AM
Eh? So I did get it the wrong way round then.
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/5/2004 3:42:29 PM
Nope, sorry RM-Nod, but Yimmy had it right, (and sorry fitz, but it is a distinction that's used in the RN). The distinction was created by the Admiralty Board Minutes and Memorandum 167/135 of 1950, now in the Public Records Office in Kew. It was decided that something had to be done to rationalise the names of types of ships under development. All ocean-going escorts, including converted destroyers, were to be frigates, split into anti-submarine and anti-air. Mutli-role ships were destroyers if they could keep fleet speeds, or sloops if they couldn't. Thus, today, the 42 is a destroyer, as it is both equiped for area air defence, as well as carrying a sub hunting helicopter, whereas the 22s and 23s, which only have the latter (despite being superior anti-surface platforms) are frigates..
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/7/2004 5:41:10 PM
So why then is Type 45 a Frigate - not to throw a wrench into the works or anything.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/7/2004 6:17:51 PM
The Type 45 is a destroyer, not a frigate. It's primary mission is fleat air defence, however it also carries an ASW helicopter.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/7/2004 10:41:26 PM
I got into the same debate about the USN's DD(X) future combatant: for all intensive purposes, the ship possesses the hull size and firepower of many medium cruisers, but its multi-role capability has it labeled as a destroyer..
 
Quote    Reply

Francis Marliere    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win   9/8/2004 4:39:08 AM
One difference is cost. Frigates are said to be cheaper than destroyers (an destroyers, cheaper than cruisers). Politics don't like "expensive" ships and prefer to fund "cheaper" ones That's why some navies decided that they only have frigate while some of their ships (such as French Suffren or Horizon AA ships) are cruiser or destroyer size. Regards,
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win - Yimmy   9/8/2004 11:50:15 PM
You may want to rethink that since nowhere in any official documentation including the Ships Cover will you find the Type 45 referred to as a Destroyer. Also for Francis, as long as we are on the subject of the RN, the Type 22 frigates were notoriously more expensive than the contemporary Type 42 destroyers, blowing the "frigates are cheaper" arguement out of the water too. If you want to go back a little further, frigates in the USN (the DLG's) were much larger and more expensive than the contemporary destroyers (DDG's).
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win - fitz   9/9/2004 6:29:00 AM
'You may want to rethink that since nowhere in any official documentation including the Ships Cover will you find the Type 45 referred to as a Destroyer.' I'd refer you, fitz, to: link To quote from it (it's the offical RN site): "The Type 45 class will be the largest and most powerful air defence DESTROYERS..." In general, frigates should be cheaper than destroyers, because in general (and this is all according to RN definitions) it's cheaper to build a single-role platform than a multi-role platform. Simply, it requires less equipment. This is not to say that overall it's cheaper to build a larger number of single-role platforms to fulfil the same missions, that's a completely different argument, we're comparing single platforms here. Yes, the 22 was more expensive than the 42. Yes, the designs came out at the same time. However, it's a little misleading to use this example to prove your point. As successors to the County class destroyers / Leander class frigates (County being far more expensive) the RN was originally looking at Type 82 destroyers / Type 22 frigates. Again, the 82 was far more expensive. Due to the cancellation of the CV-01 project, a decision was taken to produce 42s instead of 82s, as a cheaper, cut-down version (essentially, although the decision was slightly more complex in reality). In contrast, the 22s were not compromised in the design stage. A fairer price comparison would probably be the 42s with the Type 21 frigates of the same period, cut-price frigates bulking out RN numbers whilst the 22s were being introduced. The frigate / destroyer distinction works slightly differently in the USN, so isn't strictly relevent to this line of argument, especially when the 'frigates' you mention, DLGs, were later classified as cruisers, a change in classification strategy, the confusion arrising from attempting to classify them by WW2 standards of armament.
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win - fitz   9/19/2004 12:30:38 PM
Thanks for proving my point. Anyone here of a little project called the Horizon FRIGATE program?
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:Frigate and Destroyer Win - fitz   9/20/2004 10:12:39 AM
No thanks needed, where exactly did I prove your point? Be as sarcastic as you like, fitz, but Project Horizon was just that, a project. Nowhere was it stated that the ships, had they been produced for the RN, would have been 'frigates'. Other countries define things differently, but seeing as you were contradicting what someone had said about the RN, that's rather irrelevant..
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy