Frigate and Destroyer

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

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

1 2