What is the difference between Frigate vs Destroyer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- While commenting about a frigate or a destroyer, we face such questions: what is the difference between Frigate vs Destroyer? How can we define a warship as a destroyer? Why do we call it a frigate rather than a destroyer?
The Best Naval Vehicles Catalogue App : navallibrary.com/
If you are not a navy crew or a navy veteran, it could be hard to distinguish these two types of ships. The main differences between a destroyer and a frigate are tonnage, weapons, mission definition, capabilities, and the size to define it roughly. However, there is no standard to define a warship as a destroyer. Different countries have different definitions and ideas about what a destroyer or a frigate should do. For example, while the U.S. Navy describes a 9000 toned Arleigh Burke-class as a destroyer, Iran may call a 95-meter Moudge-class ship a destroyer.
As we already know, frigates and destroyers are two of the most common warships in a navy’s fleet. Both are designed for quick maneuverability and can be used to escort and protect larger vessels from air, surface and underwater threats. The similarities between frigates and destroyers have led to some European navies using the terms interchangeably. On the other hand, frigates are more common, with almost every navy in the world in possession of a frigate as part of its navy fleet.
There is a lot of difference between a destroyer and frigate and both serve their roles equally well in any Naval Force. To understand the difference clearly, firstly we need to take a look at the history.
Source:
navalpost.com/what-is-the-dif...
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/ - Наука та технологія
You deliberately put on an old, pre-modified Type 052 Luhu class picture to represent the Chinese destroyer, while you had many better choices like Type 052D and 055. Did you intend to fool the audience into believing that Chinese naval ships are inferior and obsolete?
Type 055 issophisticated destroyer ever made by china industry, we review here ua-cam.com/video/sKQ11lhv52E/v-deo.html
Tbh most western military channels use really old Chinese footage when representing Chinese systems. It's mostly because these clips just aren't as accessible to use.
100% That right sir
I was hoping he picked it because it’s a cool looking warship, the modern stuff looks bland and boring
Anything Made in China is inferior and obsolete.
The only statement that is correct in all cases is: _one is called a frigate and the other is called a destroyer_ .
It is what we in the UK call...absolute cobblers!
Well, at least the oddly modulated voice said that roughly three hunert and seventy-eleven times
@@CraigLumpyLemke and never contradicted what it just said more than three times on the same "point"
I was on 4 ships in 8 years in the US navy. My first and third ships were FF's, Fast Frigates, but they were originally designated as DE, or Destroyer Escorts back in the early 70's, or light weight Destroyers. They were slightly smaller in length and lighter displacement, but the biggest difference was that Destroyers had twin propellers (screws), but FF's (DE's) had only a single propeller. The top-end speed was close, a little over 30 knots (35 mph +/-), within a knot or two of each other, the FF could maybe kiss 33 knots with everything opened up, glassy seas and the wind from the right quarter, but the FF's felt like they'd shake apart after a fair bit going balls to the walls where Destroyers could get up to top speed and maintain it longer. Destroyers were 40% anti-submarine and 60% anti-aircraft/other surface vessels, where the FF's were slower and quieter in the water~ 80% anti-sub/20% anti-aircraft/other surface vessels.
I am glad I checked the comments first. I was going to mention how our navy has the number of screws as a defining characteristic.
As a submariner, we keep it simple.
They're just targets.
as the subs are for us 'Frigateers'.
@@MrBonners when I was in sub school many years ago, 1976, the scenario was presented. in a war, the frigates would have a life expectancy of 17 seconds, the carriers they protect have 7 minutes.
@@patrickbukowski9667 What's your point? War has always been a game of attrition, the guy who runs out of resources loses. If it takes years or minutes makes no difference.
In a tank battle, tank life expectancy is about 2.5 minutes.
@@patrickbukowski9667 What was the run-time on your torpedoes? Those are silly stats
How original of a statement. I don't think I have heard anything like that before.
After watching this i still dont know the difference between a frigate or destroyer.
I whas 7 years in the Dutch Navy in the seventees but this is a never ending story🤔😉👋
In modern US terms, destroyer is bigger, more multi mission. Frigate is smaller, cheaper, less capable, but still solid. We haven’t built forgets in a long time but Will start building some new ones soon.
@@raleeuw I have to be honest, part of me doesn’t want to use the word frigate for anything other than an age of sail fast beast with a bunch of cannons. 😂
@@Grafknar Yes for excample The Flying Dutchman😜
Together they are the tin can Navy that is all you need to know.
"Spy Dolphins"
Red Alert 3?
I had fun with mermaid 😉
@@garg_ak Mermaids are no fun. Try Siren
@@BusterBuizel Red Alert 2 had them too.
4:55 " actually destroyers are much smaller than battleships but larger than frigates" *shows ticonderoga class cruiser* lmao
..not the first time too!
0:22 that was a Ticonderoga too
Ticonderogas are based on Spruance-class destroyer hulls and are basically glorified destroyers that were given a cruiser's mission (and thus reclassified). They're still basically just a destroyer hull. The Ticonderogas were originally supposed to be DDGs but with the cancellation of the planned cruiser (CSGN) they kind of got shoehorned into being "cruisers" but at their heart, they're beefed up Spruances filled with new toys (basically, they got the Aegis system that was intended for the cruiser). Their displacement is comparable to a modern Arleigh Burke. The CSGN cruiser design that the Ticonderoga was supposed to be a complimentary DDG for was much bigger (over 16 000 tons versus 9000-and-change for the Ticonderoga).
@@paranoidrodent That just supports the idea that there really isn't a difference. Its just an easy way to discern the capabilities of ships grouped by class.
Is small compared with a battleship.
Unless its a European "Frigate" - in which case its actually a Destroyer in all but name.
yep excample, the politicanin germany avoid to clasified her navy ships destroyer, because they will be look more "friendly"
Well Britain has destroyers
Not really. Lets look at European FREMM class Frigates as an example. A FREMM Frigate has:-
6000/6700 ton displacement
8 Subsonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles
16/32 Surface to Air Missiles
76mm Main Cannon
CIWS
Six Torpedo launchers for Light Torpedoes
PESA RADAR
Hull-mounted and Towed SONAR
2 Decoy Launchers
2/1 helicopter(s)
.
Compare this to an Indian Navy Nilgiri Class Frigate:-
6700 ton displacement
8 Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles
32 Surface to Air Missiles
127mm Main Cannon
CIWS
Six Torpedo launchers for Heavyweight Torpedoes
2 Anti-Submarine Warfare Multiple Rocket launchers
AESA RADAR
Bow-mounted and Towed SONAR
4 Decoy Launchers
2 Helicopters
.
So yeah, its pretty standard for a frigate. So no, European Frigates are not Destroyers.
@@death_parade
Well
Carrying weaponry depends more upon posture of nation than its actual tonnage
For example
Russia after collapse of USSR more or less embraced defensive posture that's why even their small post 1991 designed corvets carry as much as European or Indian frigates
Weight of Weapon systems is inversely proportional to range
@@sagardyenchilwar8762 You're right. Everything is a tradeoff. If you put more weapons on a smaller ship, you aren't going to magically become able to send those smaller ships for blue-water missions. On the other hand, you can look at Indian Navy's Kamorta class corvettes. They are 3000 ton ships, but their armament is much less. This is primarily because Indian Navy needed a specialized ship for ASW roles to accompany its Blue Water fleets. So they chose less weapons and more endurance.
Given the growth in ship size and capability, it seems to me that 'destroyers' have taken on the roles of cruisers, and frigates are functioning as classical destroyers as smaller, relatively inexpensive yet flexible surface combatants. Bumping the classifications from frigate to destroyers and destroyers to cruisers would be reflective of this evolution.
Cruisers turned batrlecruisers
@@justanotherasian4395 Or just heavy cruisers... :)
Yup. A 10,000 ton DD is the same displacement as a WW2 Cruiser (including the so-called Pocket Battleships). There has definitely been a creeping up.
why are their weights going off the charts but doesn't have room for even one more gun turret. old 40-50s destroyers were cooler
@@bagochips1208 It seems to be due to habitability, electronics and bulkier weapons (missiles). Back in the '70s, newer US warships were described as 'cruise ships' because there were so few visible weapons--especially when compared to Soviet ships.
Served aboard the USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG-60) and USS Kidd (DDG-993). One of the biggest differences between the two were that frigates are single screw and destroyers are twin screw in our modern fleet.
I am glad I checked the comments first. I was going to mention how our navy has the number of screws as a defining characteristic.
We have still in service many Perry Frigates...Very stout ships...Can you please mention about advantages and disadvantages of those shios little more ?Best regards,dear...
The more expensive one is clearly the destroyer.
And, so after all the explanations, photographs, etc. - Please, what is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer? Is there any?
Yeah, I was more confused after watching this video than I was before. I think it's this: frigate=small anti-sub ship, destroyer=big anti-ship/plane/sub/land-target ship (for US navy anyway). But it's different for other navies. One navy's destroyer is another navy's frigate.
The difference is completely arbitrary, but some try to slap on specific conditions "because Empire"
Frigate is smaller than Destroyer
*Frigates are supposedly one size step below destroyers and the smallest ship that does missions by itself* (i.e. can operate alone for a while without running into unsolvable problems all the time). Specialisation is also a differentiation, with destroyers supposedly more generally outfitted, while figates are more specialised.
In reality these terms are highly variable from country to country. Above differentiation is close to the US definitions, AFAIK.
Another problem is that, by the nature of the history of warfare, many people know about these terms from a WWII perspective, when bigger ships besides carriers were a thing. But the knowledge about that time is just not applicable any more, naval aviation and rockets have made cruisers and battle ships obsolete, so the then tiny destroyer became the biggest used ship after carriers. But military needs change, so the used-to-be-tiny destroyers that are the biggest non-carrier ships have grown compared to those of the past.
to keep it simple, basically frigates lack land-attack missiles that only some destroyers have.
So Destroyers are more multi-role capable than frigates.
What's the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?
00:30 -- There's a difference
00:45 -- There's no definition
01:00 -- They do the same thing
01:15 -- Some navies use the terms interchangeably
01:28 -- There's a lot of difference between them
Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
Not sure if I'm accurate but
Frigate:
>smaller than destroyer
>smaller offensive and defensive capabilities
>mainly use as defensive warships
>scout, anti-sub, deal with small ships
>cheaper than destroyer
Destroyer:
>larger than frigate
>better armament, more offensive capabilities, more room for upgrade
>scout, anti-sub, provide intel for anti-air and anti-missile, provide protection for larger vessel, pursuit key target with missile and torpedoes
>more suitable to cross ocean than frigate due to higher tonnage for resisting ocean wave
I think destroyers have more speed to keep up with an carrrier convoy. Frigates are usually slower
@@NewmaticKe CODOG frigate can catch up to destroyer though. Cant say the same for CODAD one
Casual Gamer, you are right, that used to be de definition... The problem as i see it, is that Navies today tend to avoid some of the terms for political reasons.
The Zumwalt class, by its tonnage and capabilities should be a cruiser, not a destroyer. The Type 31 Frigate is basically a destroyer, but designated as a Frigate... And other navies try to claim that their smaller patrol vessels are corvettes or frigates... So i for one would like an international standard on the subject :)
So frigate are still destroyer but smaller and weaker
wrong. the name destroyer is a misnomer, destroyer is short for torpedo-boat-destroyer, these where boats or very small ships designed to counter attacking torpedo boats during the era of ww1 where battleships needed protection from torpedo boats. today, thanks mostly to americans again not knowing what words mean (looking at you 'billion') people think that a destroyer is bigger than a frigate even though the name for a small to mid sized war ship always was frigate and if anything historically speaking a frigate is larger than a destroyer boat. so destroyer is a very recent new name and a misnomer at that while frigate is a traditional naval term for a small to mid sized war ship.
The diference is cultural. The first destroyer ever, the Spanish "Destructor" was a torpedo boat destroyer. Spain's current 7000 t Alvaro de Bazán AEGIS "destroyers" are called "frigates".
Yes, originally destroyers were all torpedo boats during the Dreadnought age. It was a revolutionary idea at the time.
Which makes it sort of silly to call a tiny ship a "frigate". Originally, in the Age of Sail, frigates were the smallest ships of the line, ships meant to go toe-to-toe with large galleons and other large warships. Which means frigates were not small at all.
And their 'custom' ship which a australian hobart-class is considered a destroyer
The lines have become so blurred that when I have to explain to someone who doesn't know that much i just start calling frigate and destroyers large surface combatants and Corvettes small surface combatant because even in this video the things that they mentioned that a destroyer had that a frigate don't show up in a majority of modern frigates
During the Cold War, I served in the US Navy aboard two Knox Class Frigates, USS Brewton FF-1086 and USS Hewes FF-1078 as a Sonar Technician (STG). The primary mission on these ships was Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). There was a bow mounted active/passive sonar dome and the USS Hewes had a variable depth Towed Array System (TAS) which was deployed from the stern. All Knox Class Frigates had helo landing pads aft. H-2 Helos were attached to the frigates during deployments. These aircraft were equipped with "dipping" sonar and could deploy "sonar buoys" to make enemy sub whereabouts known to the fleet. Other fixed wing aircraft used magnetic resonance equipment to locate submarines There were also fixed underwater sonar buoys (SOSA Stations) permanently deployed in different locations around the globe. Our biggest threat at the time was Soviet Ballistic Submarines (Boomers). The Soviets were capable of launching virtually at any point in any ocean and hit targets anywhere on the planet, including the US and it's Allies. Detection was the key to prevent this from being a threat. The Russians continue the cat and mouse game to this day. Currently the Chinese have taken over the number one spot in active submarines deployed in the world's oceans. The US Navy and our Allies have a huge responsibility in keeping the sea lanes open and protecting our interests at home and abroad. God Bless the men and women who serve in the US Navy. "You Have The Watch".
Originally designated Destroyer Escorts.
This story was written truly and honestly.
Are you sure you didn't tell some secret ?
I saw command ship of VI. fleet stationed in Mediterranean and A. Burke destroyer in Adriatic .Still don't know what is difference between destroyer and frigate (in size)?
a frigate with a hypersonic missile is as good as a Destroyer.
That's like saying a Rifle is as good as any LMG. Your frigates will not be the only ones using hypersonic missiles, your destroyers would be outfitted with the same type, and then it comes down to detection and capacity.
Hypersonic missiles are only good for first strikes or short range targets otherwise their advantage runs out quick, especially since they can not maneuver in their terminal phase.
@@ThatCarGuy So ICMBs that travel on hypersonic speed are not good?
@@acceptablecasualty5319 Can Hypersonic missiles destroy a destroyer?
@@thejordanianphilosopher6666 That's like asking if a missile can destroy a tank. Generally speaking, probably, but it would depend on the warhead size and design.
Japan is the only navy in the word that got rid of destroyer(駆逐艦)/frigate(フリゲート艦) naming distinctions
Al large surface combatants are called “Escort ships” (護衛艦) regardless of size (note that 護衛艦is not frigate in Japanese, although it means frigate in Korean and Chinese)
However, each escort ship class is designated “destroyer” “Frigate” when written down in English for the sake of our English speaking allies
DDGs DDs, FFMs are all”escort ships” in japanese
As an Operations Specialist in the 1980's, I was on the USS Coontz (DDG-40), predecessor to the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Our main mission in the 80's was that of Carrier Escort. I don't if things have changed over the years, but that was our main mission.
I was stationed on the Bronstein class "Frigate" shown @ 1:09. (U.S.S Bronstein DE 1037) At the time it was a Destroyer Escort. I heard that the designation was changed to Fast Frigate somewhere around 1975-6.
I once had a co-worker that was on your sister ship: U.S.S. McCloy.
His favorite story was about how their towed sonar array snagged a Soviet Victor-III submarine. It fouled her stern and she had to surface and be towed by a Russian tug back to Cuba.
So when he says "let us look at the history" it is US History - ha ha ha - Forgetting the Royal Navy History.
Q: What is the difference between Frigate vs Destroyer
A: One is a type of seabird and the other breaks things
As far as the major navies are concerned, a destroyer is a vessel primarily designed to engage above-water threats, and a frigate below-water threats. This takes the form in both cases of a large multirole vessel that generally acts as an escort for mission-specific vessels, though destroyers owing to their role are generally larger and more complex.
It gets messy where there are exceptions to this rule, and there are a lot.
In the Royal Navy, a frigate only has one primary role. A destroyer has more than one primary role.
I think the way the Royal Navy defines it is pretty good. If it is ASW it’s a Frigate. If it’s Anti-Air it is a Destroyer
I was an ASROC Gunners Mate on FF1044, USS Brumby. I discussed the mission of Frigates with our officers on several occasions, and observed the mission in action for 2 years. In formation, we were an outside picket ship protecting the perimeter of a convoy. We had advanced sonar and Anti-Sub capability... this was our primary mission. Our secondary mission was gun support... we carried only (2) 5"-54 gun-mounts with older series fire control radar (synchro). In the extreme event, our ASROC system could be armed with nukes... we trained for this regularly.
video is so so.... but commentary section on the other hand, is pure gold, recommend!
Amazing as always!
I never seen a video that contradicts itself so much.
Back then when i was a kid and took things quite a bit literally, I thought a destroyer was called a destroyer because it destroys. And a frigate..well...frigates.
Frigging was a main preoccupation back in school
Frigate is also a term used quite frequently in the English language referring to not remembering a certain event. For example; "Frigate about it".
Go home, you're drunk.
I think of Frigates as anti-sub but I think of destroyers as anti-ship
Hmmm, if all multi propose :v all in one ship :v
Both modern destroyers and frigates are multi-mission ship capable of both anti-surface, anti-submarine, anti-air, and anti-air warfare. The only meaningful differences are displacement and weapons capacity, destroyers tend to be larger and carry more weapons.
Ye same. I got that from Gunship Battle.
@@mickeyg7219in some countries yes , but major navies like China, uk , USA have their destroyers focused on air , missile defence.
@Gen Vuelhammodern, cruisers are made to be perfect in both land attack and air defence, while destroyers would have to sacrifice one in favor of the other
They are also meant to be lead ships , and can take on fleets alone
Thanks. Long awaited topic.
Hope you enjoyed it!
4:57 that's not a Frigate, on the left side that is a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser. Cruser is Larger than Destroyer. Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer on the Right side.
Most definitely, the lead ship is a Cruiser, one with VLS. I was on the Vinny, she had the old double arm bandit missile launchers.
In historical terms, cruisers are bigger than destroyers but size creep means that modern destroyers are pushing into WW2 cruiser sizes. Also, the Ticonderogas themselves are not normal cruisers and did not start as cruiser designs.
Ticonderogas are called cruisers because they were altered during development to fit the Aegis system designed for the cancelled 1970s CSGN program. The Ticonderogas weren't the actual intended cruiser. They were supposed to be the destroyers built to accompany those cruisers... but the big 16 000+ ton displacement nuclear powered cruisers got cancelled. Ticonderogas are under 10k in displacement and aren't substantially higher displacement than a current gen Arleigh Burke. They're a destroyer hull (derived from the Spruance-class destroyer) that got some cruiser toys refitted into it because the US Navy still some of the capabilities of the original Aegis ship cruiser after it was cancelled. They renamed the destroyer program as a cruiser program and thus those mutant Spruance destroyers became the Ticonderoga class cruiser. It's still basically a destroyer hull. The cruiser designation was mostly about mission profile and capabilities, not hull size.
Zumwalt-class destroyers are about 1.5 times the displacement of a Ticonderoga. Now those *could* have been called cruisers based on sheer hull displacement but weren't, probably because it's easier to get Congress to approve destroyers since the end of the Cold War.
@@paranoidrodent I get what you what to Say sir. 🙂 But the navy Classified it as a Cruiser that's why we called it Cruiser. I don't Care about any Technicalities, I just Stick on what the Navy said. But Thanks For The Info. 😁👍🏼
@@mcred9512 It is indeed a cruiser, but 'tis a wee one.
@@paranoidrodent 😂 Hahaha
I am a navy Electronics technician vet, I spent 3 years on a Destroy Leader guided missile (DLG-8) in 1962-1965. We were 512 feet long, carried some asroc missiles, surface-to-air missiles, 2 3-inch, and 5-inch guns. We carried the 6th fleet commodore as well. I think we had 300 men and officers. We had SPS-10 and SPS-29 radars, it was over 60 years ago so the radar numbers might be wrong as I am 78 with a failing memory. Made 2 med cruises and was one of the ships that blockaded Cuba during the Cuban crisis of 1962. We were built on an old cruiser hull and later on, we were rebuilt known as DLG-39, then was mothballed.
Boss i have a question,
Do you know Marshal Shaposhnikov Udaloy I Class?, in tonase is look a Destroyer, but with new upgrade and modernisation weapon they class is down just Multi Propose Frigate,
Because if VS Admiral Gorshkov Class Frigate is less fire power,
Why in tonase is Destroyer in weapon is Frigate?,
Or Sigma 10514 Frigate but weapon just like Corvete, will is down grade and just a Corvete?,
This topic on progress
Jack Webb, aka "Sargent Joe Friday" as a narrator. Interesting.
What you failed to mention was the DLG class destroyer. These ships were the battle coordinators. Thus the letter L. I served on the U.S.S. Dahlgren, DLG 12.
awesome video :)
Thanks for the visit
Back in the '80s, I asked my next door neighbor that question because he was an officer in the Canadian Navy assigned to the city-class frigate design project. His answer: "the mission".
Canadians are generally clueless
Sounds like something an FFG sailor would say....
F221 "Fregatte Hessen" Veteran. Cool seeing it in the video.
One "Frigates" things, the other "Destroys" things.
I dunno. Had to come up with something.
*Thanks sir for such good explanation, now i know what is different among frigate corvette destroyer cruiser!*
Greetings from sunda empire
"No spy dolphins were harmed in the making of this video." ;-)
Well that was 8 minutes I'll never get back.
I would think also top sustained speed, emergency flank speed, acceleration and range would play a factor as well in the distinction between the two types of warships.
Differences are dictated primarily by role/mission, just like the offense or defense of a football team. Each position on the field has a specific role. Some roles are shared by the players. Same goes for naval vessels.
Nice Informative video 👍
Skjold class warships are called Corvette and Magen Class / Buyan Class are also called Corvettes
how & why so 🤔🙄
Commodores are now called Rear Admiral lower half
So it really boils down to whatever the owner calls it.
No mention of Destroyer Escorts. Which were in fact Frigates.
I think the term can best be explained that European navies more commonly use frigates, while the US relies more on destroyers. That's a simplistic explanation.
Nice one...now can I know n difference between frigates Ang corvette
I always thought a Destroyer had the primary mission of dealing with subs and any ship you had trouble classifying you just said "ah frig-it!" and thus the name was born
Traditionally Frigates were torpedo catcher's for the Carrier and did Anti Submarine Warfare, Destroyers handled the Surface threat and CG's handled the air threats in front of the Carriers
@@grege2383 what do you mean by surface threat, like destroyers went out and engaged battleships? that doesn't seem right
@@robbybee70 They did as part of a Task Force including Battleships and Cruisers, they carried Heavyweight Torpedoes and would use there speed and manoeuvrability to get close enough to launch Torpedoes while the bigger ships would be shelling the Battleships.
@@robbybee70 other Navy's have small boats, Frigates, and other surface vessels that are capable of doing damage to the battlegroup
frigates have been around for centuries but the ships have moved all over the map when designations are considered
2 upcoming Warships of the Indian Navy
1. Vishakapatnam Class Destroyers. 8000 tons max. 16 x BrahMos , 32 x Barak 8, Heavy torpedo tubes and ASW rocket launchers . Hanger for 2 helicopters and range over 12,000 kms at nominal speeds.
2. Nilgiri Class Frigates . 6700 tons max. 8 x BrahMos . 32 x Barak 8 , Heavy Torpedo tubes and ASW rocket launchers. Hanger for 2 helicopters, range over 9000 kms at nominal speeds.
Video made the difference between the two clear-- clear as mud.
I enlisted in USMC in 1966, but grew up loving ships. Cruisers were in between battleships and destroyers. Remember USS Indianapolis was as. Ruiser
The Canadian version of the Type 26 will have a displacement approaching 9000 tons yes is called a frigate. Ships like the Type 26 and Arleigh Burkes should be called cruisers.
I think the Arleigh Burks were Frigets at conception.
I mean a Burke, which tops out at around 10k tons full load, weighs about the same as a WW II Treaty cruiser- which were limited to 10,000 tons. In some cases, like the Atlantas, and maybe the Pensacolas, the Burkes are heavier!! The Clevelands were around 12k or so- and those are massive ships! On the other hand, the Fletcher class destroyer was 2500 tons full load, lol.
the British version of the type 26 also 9000 tonnes and is far bigger than US destroyers it is similar size to WW2 cruiser class under the Washington treaty (limited warship sizes), current British Frigates are similar sized to current US destroyers now. America has such bad naming schemes for it's surface fleet. the type 26 the British and Canadian Navys are building are amazing though cannot wait to see one sail out from Portsmouth/Plymouth
except the Burkes are smaller than the US cruisers
@@SirZanZa bad naming? so it’s the US’s fault the Type 26s are going to be so huge? the Burkes were larger then frigates when introduced, so sorry if your ignorance prevents you from seeing that a ship class that has been in service for 30 years and larger than ships called frigates(a name that the Royal Navy brought back) that served entirely different roles than destroyers
well done
2:37 *i can see corvette class KD Lekir from RMN side by side with USS Bunker Hill .. it looks so small enough😂
In Tom Clancy novels, the frigate is for ASW warfare and convoy escort while the destroyer is part of the carrier battle group responsible for AAW and ASuR warfare. The destroyer being there to protect the carrier and supply ships. Makes sense to me
same role that’s been used for 80 years…only difference is nowadays the ASW is able to be done by destroyers due to change of needs of the navy
Watched the video and am still confused. You made it clear as mud.
At one point the USN used the different terms to differentiate machinery. Frigates had one set of machinery and one screw, destroyers had two.
So, what makes you an expert? Credentials please! (they should be in the description)
An extreme case: The Argentine destroyer Almirante Brown (Meko class) is 3360 tons and carries one helo, vs the Chilean frigate Capitán Prat (Adelaide class) which is 4100 tons and carries two helos. Now, Argentines are known to exaggerate their capabilities while Chileans tend to hide them.
Finally a video without a stupid robotic voice
They excluded the Destroyer Escort classification before they went to Frigate again in the 1975
It literally doesn't matter anymore as ship demands pretty much require any "small boy" to be able to fulfill a spectrum of support roles from escort to antisub. It used to, up to WW2, where Destroyer came from "Torpedo Boat Destroyer", cruisers were established as a warship between lighter vessels and Battleships, and the displacement norms were established from WW1 era treaties. But with asymmetrical warfare such as missile systems, production capacity limitations, and the need for variable roles based on ability to respond to crisis, the big difference is really up to each country that defines it by nomenclature.
I think that's its a little odd that you keep using the image of a Ticonderago-class Cruiser when talking about Frigates.
Also, regarding displacement for frigates I think 5,000t is a low cap. As others have pointed out, there are many European frigates such as the Ivar Huitfeldt-class, Sachsen-class, FREMM-class, De Zeven Provincien-class, Duke-class and the upcoming City-class that all exceed this tonnage, yet are called frigates.
It's not odd. The US Navy originally
called its Leahy and Belknap class cruisers "frigates". Ship classifications are pretty ambiguous in the guided missile age.
@@petergray7576 no, it's still a weird choice.
Those ships are far larger and more capable than any other class of frigate in the world.
The fact that they're larger than the USN's own destroyers should tell you that the moniker of frigate shouldn't apply.
I think it's clearly just an oversight in making this video. Otherwise why would they use a ship that displaces almost twice the amount that they use as the upper figure for frigates?
Those American ships are simply too big to be called frigates; no matter what their original plans labelled them.
It's a bit like the Japanese labelling their helicopter/soon-to-be aircraft carriers as destroyers.
That sounds like Sgt Joe Friday narrating that black and white video
"Just the facts, ma'am."
0:55 you are explaining both are destroyers, but the text says differently
In short a Frigate is a Jenny Craig version of a Destroyer..
Best comment here; a good joke. It seems we have a remarkable number of unemployed naval and political experts commenting here, I didn't realize there were that many intellectuals were available.
Displacement?
Another difference between frigates & destroyers (I served on both) is the number of screws that propel them. Frigates used to be called destroyer escorts and also referred to as 'one-legged sailor' meaning it was propelled by only one screw (propeller); also only a single rudder. Frigates are normally used to defend civilian shipping during war time and absorbed by a carrier battle group as an outer radar picket.
Destroyers are always twin screw & twin rudder. Also considered a multi mission platform capable of operating independently as well as serve within a carrier battle group as anti-sub & anti-air with limited surface to surface action.
nonsense. Destroyer is an american misnomer because americans don't know what words mean. A Destroyer, originally called Torpedo-Boat-Destroyer after their task of protecting Battleships against Torpedoboats, is a boat or very small ship. A frigate on the other hand is the traditional name for a small to mid sized war ship, always has been, always will be, from the age of sail up to the present day. The next lager ship class would be a Cruiser, which is the historic name for the larger frigates.
So destroyers are more competent versions of frigates?
You're close. Frigates are cheaper versions of destroyers.
Still confused since my country (Belgium) and The Netherlands are building new Frigates together but they have both elements from what you mentioned of a Frigate but also of a Destroyer since their firepower exceeds that of a current Frigate and is multi purpose for anti air , anti ship and anti sub duty.
Including a helicopter platform and anti ballistic missile laser system
So are we building Destroyers but just calling them Frigates? :P
FFG’s in US use were more solitary inexpensive vessels for independent ASW. DDG’s are better for escorting CVs. They are too expensive to build that many to do the missions of both. And frankly everybody needs more ASuW capability. Glad we are going to start building loads of FFG’s again.
tldr: A frigate is a discount destroyer.
European Navy call their 6,000 tons 120 meters all purpose (anti-ship, anti-air, and anti submarine) warship called frigate.
Meanwhile in 3rd world Navy, 800 tons tug-boat with machine gun is a "Destroyer"
And there is Russia, tons of missiles, guns, and torpedoes, 10,000 tons floating fortress they call it "Destroyer", meanwhile in Japan, technically an Aircraft Carrier like Izumo also classified as "Destroyer"
Watch out for those "Spy Dolphins"!!
my understanding is frigates meant to defend, and destroyers meant to destroy enemies, basically destroyers acting as secondary firepower of the fleet
For me, destroyers are defined by their ability to carry out sierra strikes, as well as their size, and propulsion configuration.
To me, together they are the tin can Navy. I always wanted to serve on one of these but I got stuck on 1st the USS Forrestal an aircraft carrier and then the USS Holland a sub tender.
OK. Now that I am totally confused, what is a destroyer escort?
Old US name for a frigate.
In the navy, the computers and missiles get smaller but the ships get bigger.
0:34, holy shit that's my previous ship!
The difference is size. Previous American frigate classes had the same missions as destroyers with less weapons and less speed. Frigates were designed for escort but could and did perform the submarine warfare, surface warfare, air warfare roles of destroyers. They could also carry the same or more helicopters as destroyers. The FFG 7S on paper did not do naval gun fire support but were capable of doing so. Their 76mm shell had the range and weight of a 5 inch 38 gun and could fire faster.
Corporate needs you to tell the difference between this ship (frigate) and this ship (destroyer).
Everyone : they are the same ship.
Anyone catch the voice over narration describing destroyers. It’s Jack Webb.
What about sea keeping abilities? Weren't WWII destroyers derisively called "tin cans" for how they handled rough weather? Are there still Destroyer Escorts, and Corvettes? Thanks!
they were called that because you got rattled around while being transported on them and they weren’t that armored compared with cruisers and battleships
My dad was on the USS Phelps Destroyer in WWII. The Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. He was in the USS Lexington task force. his was the ship that sank the Lady Lex to keep out of enemy hands. He was part of the ring of steel and his ship was hit by a Kamikaze he was injured in that attack. He never ever talked about it. I found most of this pout doing my own research and from old photos. there is a picture of him in front of a life saver from the Phelps, I guess a send home to the folks picture. I can not even imagine what they went through.. a very bust ship in WWII.
В видео много старинных фото, которые я виду впервые.
Спасибо вам за них!
In wwII Frigates were known as sub chasers and were smaller than Destroyers with less guns.
Definition depends on the navy nowadays. US navy destroyers are bigger than frigates. In the Royal Navy destroyers are anti air escorts and tend to be bigger and frigates are either multi purpose ships but lacking area defence missiles and/or are specialised anti submarine warfare vessels. European navy’s tend to have two broad categories of frigate, anti air larger frigates (which in the US and UK would be classified as destroyers) and medium to smaller general purpose vessels. Japan has large anti air destroyers and medium sized general purpose destroyers which the US/UK/most EU navy’s would call frigates. Japans frigates may be called light frigates or even corvettes elsewhere.
Knew a couple officers , who's first duty station was on Knox class frigates, On the west coast Now decommissioned.
In Britain and with the Royal Navy, Destroyer is your Air Defence Vessel, Frigate is your AntiShip and AntiSubmarine in primary roles, obviously they have stuff for rest but talking their primary role.
A destroyer destroys things while a frigate fries things.
I guess the frigate was invented by Belgium.
I'll call my destroyer CONAN!
I learned the difference a while back but I frigate it all.
Simply speaking, a destroyer is a ship which protects other vessels in a fleet from air threats and performs a counter attack at the enemy and a frigate is more like a ASW ship . In Some countries destroyers and frigates are same . On the other hand cruiser is more like a modern battleship which unleashes hell on the enemy fleet and blowing the crap out of it as well as provide support to ground troops with its surface to surface missiles.
We have shivalik class and Nilgiri class stealth frigate which have tonnage equal to that of destroyer