Frigate VS Destroyer | What is the Difference Between Them ?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2024
- Frigates And Destroyer | What is difference between them ? How can we define a warship as a destroyer ? Why do we call it a frigate rather than a destroyer ? Find the Answer in the following video .
All content on Defense TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @defense-tv
Frigates are also the smallest warship capable of running escort missions for convoys (or at least they were)....
And surface ship size (from smallest to largest)
Gunboat --->Minesweeper -->Corvette -->Frigate -->Destroyer -->Battleship -->Aircraft Carrier.
You forgot cruiser and battle cruiser...EG 1. Moskva and Kirov are battle cruisers and 2. USS Ticonderoga, USS Long beach are cruisers.The ZUmwalt destroyer is so big it could be a battle cruiser because of its size, displacement and offensive weaponry!
Battleships no longer exist , cruisers -heavy cruisers are the biggest ships of modern fleets ; )
That line has been blurred by advances in technology
Normally it was defined by weight and weapons but there are some frigates that reveal some destroyers in capabilities
With the US, Frigate were escorts/ ASW while for smaller navies, frigates are their capital ships
Every navy has their own definition of what frigate does but general speaking, destroyers and cruisers are the ships that generally considered by all principal or major surface combatants
Love teh oliver hazard perry.
For example the French navy doesn’t call its ships destroyers, but first rank frigates or second rank frigates, the first rank frigates being considered destroyers by NATO and having a hull number starting with D, while second rank frigates being considered frigates and having a hull number starting with F….
In the game "Pirates!" frigates were my favourite ships.
US "destroyer" are classified as such as to distinguish them from the Ticonderoga cruisers that were the most modern fleet system at the time the AB class came along. Both the AB and T are essentially the same displacement and perform the same fleet roles. But in politics, "cruisers" are perceived as more expensive, so they were called destroyers. In reality, AB's are cruisers.
Not exactly. The difference is academic. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
This definition is good but old. More flexible roles and goals are required. Ship swarms, with masked capabilities, and targets are more likely to be successful.
And drone swarms - air and subsea.
Thank you for this video.
Bucharest, Roumanie
Frigates are smaller, generally don't have ballistic missile defense(some do though) and generally have better range. They do better hunting down submarines do to their faster movement where destroyers and cruisers are meant to protect the fleet from air attack and also submarines that get by the frigates.
Um, no. Easiest way to define Destroyer is as combat focus Frigate or heavy escort. Those are powerful warships designed specifically as fleet escorts. They have lot of weapons and can easily fallow warfleet, which average speed is way higher then civilian convoys. Actually Frigates are the multi-mision ones. They have less weapons, slightly weaker engines but have more cargo space and can operate detached from fleets. Typically doing patrols, scouting, convoy escorts and independent submarine hunting, or anything what needed. During emergencies also join warfleet, though are here limited in capabilities. On the other hand Corvettes due to small size typically do coastal tasks, but can provide limited oceanic operations and convoy protection (what LCS "ships" can't do, being failed concept). When Cruisers being similarly outfitted but larger then Frigates, can operate completely independent, including having own flag facility (as such they also serve as primary or auxiliary flag facility if attached to fleet).
@@TheRezro Um, no. You can not describe a frigate as a destroyer. They have no ballistic missile defense. Huge difference. Look at the VLS count between an AB class destroyer and say a type 23 frigate. It's massive. It's funny you say no, but then literally write what I typed above.
" which average speed is way higher then civilian convoys. Actually Frigates are the multi-mision ones. They have less weapons, slightly weaker engines but have more cargo space and can operate detached from fleets. "
So you agree they are move maneuverable, you agree their are less armed, and they go hunt the submarine as I stated, thank you.
@@ThatCarGuy Ok. First of balletic defense has literally nothing to do with the classification. What existed before introduction of Aegis System. That is pure conjection. Second. When I ever mention maneuverability? With weaker engines Frigates are less maneuverable, but that is not important for they mission profile. Destroyers also can eliminate submarines. But they rarely would leave battle group, to cheese them. You confuse mission profile with capabilities. Also with what you even argue which?
@@TheRezro "First of balletic defense has literally nothing to do with the classification."
By modern standards it does.
"What existed before introduction of Aegis System. That is pure conjection."
Using this logic we need to go back to the first destroyer with boilers.
"Destroyers also can eliminate submarines. But they rarely would leave battle group, to cheese them. You confuse mission profile with capabilities."
You have to be trolling me at this point. I literally stated this in my original comment.
"Frigates are smaller, generally don't have ballistic missile defense(some do though) and generally have better range. They do better hunting down submarines do to their faster movement where destroyers and cruisers are meant to protect the fleet from air attack and also submarines that get by the frigates."
"Second. When I ever mention maneuverability? With weaker engines Frigates are less maneuverable"
I guess they "Typically doing patrols, scouting, convoy escorts" since they are less maneuverable. Also since when are smaller ships less maneuverable then ships that are literally 100+ feet larger. I guess a small 25 foot boat turns worse then a nuclear carrier using your logic since it's engines are weaker. End sarcasm. The larger and more heavy something is, the slower it can turn making it less maneuverable. You literally have no idea what you are talking about and I will be muting you from here on. Enjoy trolling someone else.
@@ThatCarGuy Ok, you are clearly a troll. So I would ignore you.
in modern day, there's absolutely no difference except the tonnage. Even there is not standard tonnage rule...but observing around, it seems Frigates are around 3000-6900 tons...while Destroyers are around 7000-12000 tons.
Heaviest Frigates seems to be the FREMM, while the Lightest Destroyers seem to be the Hobart Class and Horizon Class.
Further in terms of armaments. ...India's new Frigate and Destroyers ...the Nilgiri Class and Vishakapatnam Class have identical radars and weapons...except Nilgiri being slightly smaller will carry 8 less Anti ship missiles.
Indeed. And probably the FREMM would probably be defined as a destroyer by some nations
@@francescoboselli6033 It isn't by any :)
@@francescoboselli6033 even the Baden-Würtemburg class frigates.
@@francescoboselli6033 horizon class is classified as a destroyer too. Baden-Würtemburg class is internationally classified as a destroyer but it lacks proper weaponry
@@shamanbhattacharyya9285 aren't Horizon class and FREMM the same design? 😅
I mean isn't the Horizon the French variant of the FREMM?
The F-221 Hessen shown in the video is actually a destroyer. Due to the general attitude of the Germans towards the war, we named the destroyer Frigate. The Sachsen-class is able to fulfill operational orders in the context of naval warfare on its own without further support, the ships are de facto destroyers despite their official classification as frigates, although current destroyers such as the Arleigh Burke class of the US Navy or the Daring class of the British Royal Navy has a significantly larger number of long-range anti-aircraft missiles. The three ships of the class replaced the Lütjens-class destroyers, which were decommissioned between 1998 and 2003, in a ratio of 1:1.
that is an urban myth, given the Bundesmarine had constantly destroyers in its fleet since its creation. Plainly put: The class distinction makes no sense when you only have 12-15 ships in that weight class of three different types. More importantly the Sachsen class has a dedicated mission profile as an air defense ship which IS a difference to destroyer classes which are usually general surface combat ships.
Even then the main difference is whether you have a pure blue water navy or have to fight in the EUropean waters where there is always a shore close by, even if it is not precisely littoral environment.
There's seems to be so much overlap and redundancies between Ticonderoga and Burke class. They have identical Missile/ASW/Radar capabilities and both carry helicopters. It seems like the new Frigate coming out sans full Aegis system is like a "Diet Burke" - I imagine this will phase out the LCS ships.
The next class of German frigates, the F-126, will be over 10k t of displacement and a length of 166m. That's bigger than almost any destroyer.
Well it’s not only about the displacement and length, it’s also about the firepower, which could still be at frigate level.
@@Christopher_Rock The new F126 will feature VLS, Harpoon, 127mm LCG, multiple CIWS and 2 Hangars. It is armed like a destroyer, weights more than most destroyers and is still labeled as a frigate.
I am sure that the german government just wants to avoid the name destroyer because it sounds bad.
@@blackgoldman2 Most German Frigates (with the exception of F125) scratch at Destroyer armament level. F124 meets Destroyer criteria. F126 is supposed to be even heavier armed. In Germany it's a political thing, destroyer sounds scarier to civies than frigate.
@@jonny2954 Yes, you are right. Still I would like to add the F122 to the "could be a frigate" list. It is small with just 130m length, weighs less than 4000t and is focused on ASW.
There were no Destroyers (Zerstörer) in german navy terms befor the end of WWII. They were called torpedoboats or frigats. After WWII the West German Army recived 6 Destroyers from the US Navy. After they fell out of service they were replaced by ships called Fregatten (Frigates) its the more correct term in our navel traditions and has nothing to do with public opinion but traditions in ship naming.
Once upon a time their was a clear difference between ships every agreed was a Frigate and ships everybody agreed was a Destroyer.
Recently some of the Europeans started calling all their large surface combatants Frigates. It appears the term Destroyer has simply fallen out of favour with some navies. This has nothing what so ever to do with historical definitions. At the same time the classifications "Cruiser" and "Battleship" have also fallen out of favour. For example the US Navy Burke class destroyers are so large, they would be called "Battle Cruisers" if you were to use the old definitions based on speed and tonnage from WW2. The fact that you have a Destroyer like Zumwalt which is 16,000 tones, shows how much the old definitions are today null and void.
Another factor which has increased the confusion is that modern combat ships are more multirole than ever before. There is no such thing as a purpose built anything anymore. All Ships have to perform anti-air, anti-ship, anti-Submarine missions. This is more than anything else behind the fact that today's ships are bigger and more expensive than ever before. This has destroyed the last thing that used to be a point of difference which was the combat role.
The Royal Australian Navy's proposed new Hunter class Frigate, will be a 10,000 ton Frigate. Looks like being three thousand tones bigger than the RAN's Hobart class Destroyer. The Hunter Class was Initially proposed as an anti submarine warfare vessel, but they now want it to match the Hobart class Destroyer, in the air defense role, but they still are going to call it a Frigate. Why because the 3,500 tone Anzac class that it will replace was called a Frigate.
So now we have a Navy using the definition of the ship a vessel will replace to determine the definition of a new class of warship. The strange games people play.
They are called frigates cause destroyer does not go well with some public's of nations. The type 26 for example is pretty much a destroyer but is called a frigate for exports.
If a Burke class destroyer by your definition is a battle crusier then what the hell is a Pyotr Velikiy class battle cruiser a Dreadnaught battleship? at 28k displacement, it is right up there with battleships and Dreadnaughts in tonnage and size. As for the Zumwalt I would say with it's weight and size it's more of a cruiser and not a destroyer.
@@Dazzxp As I said, classifications like Cruiser and battleship have simply fallen out of favour. No Navy has built anything this century that they choose to use the old classifications of Cruiser or battleship to describe them. Totally agree that if the Russian navy were to call the Kirov class a battleship nobody would have disagreed. Note is it not my definition, but the norms of World War two, when classifications were tied to displacement and speed. Keep in mind that a Destroyer used to be a very small ship, a Fletcher class was just two thousand tones displacement, today we build patrol boats that big.
@@boratb258 I have not heard anybody in the UK referring to the type 26 coming to the Royal Navy as a destroyer. Not convinced this is related to exports, but more likely marketing BS. The Type 26 was sold to the Royal Navy as a smaller, cheaper alterative to the type 45, despite being even more expensive. Just as the Hunter class will a bigger, more expensive, but less capable ship than the Hobart class which was promoted as being two big and expensive to build more of by its competitors. Plenty of Lies and not much else.
@@marktucker8896 It has 72 VLS cells, UK is going to run 48 anti air missiles and 24 anti ship missiles. The U.S Burk destroyers have something like 90 VLS cells.
Canada is putting Tomahawks in their type 26's too.
Very close armaments to the U.S Burks.
Basically a frigate is a smaller Destroyer with less capabilities and less cost to build
Not really, the vessel times these days are more clearly differentiated along Mission lines. Simply put, Destroyers tend to be oriented toward AA combat, and Frigates toward ASW... Reasons being that a faster and larger ship is desired for AA defence, as the destroyer hull is generally faster and has better range/payload characteristics... Good for keeping pace with a carrier and defending it. However, for hunting submarines, stealth is a more important attitude. For this reason, Frigates tend to be a bit smaller, and generally have better sonar and much quieter machinery - and this is where most defence pundits get it wrong... Destroyers of course have the same ASW weapons, but, that isn't the important attribute. The most important defining attribute which the Frigate has, nowadays it it's relative quiet, and hence, ability to maintain the detection advantage over a submarine. With regard to AA defence, the Frigate is generally considered capable of self defence, but, generally not as capable at fleet defence.
That's pretty much what I said
@@j.m.youngquist419 No, you said a frigate is a smaller destroyer, when in fact, some are larger than the destroyers they replaced, and also more expensive.
The changes to frigates and destroyers over the last 80 years sees the majority in the light cruiser class (though some are not as fast). The US would probably find it cheaper to mass produce the Arleigh Burke hull to cover both their requirements (standardisation, easier crew training, maintenance) rather than yet another expensive "jack of all trades"/" master of none" (the current contender for the new Australian frigate appears to be forever changing).
I can't remember how many Arleigh Burkes they built, they started coming out in the late 70's, but I saw a video that said they're coming to the end of the road. I was saddened to hear that. They're a fine ship. Same as the Spruance class. The USS Spruance was one of our escorts on my last Med cruise in 79.
Navy observations and sub capabilities should keep rogue nations on high alert. Bigger toys for bigger boys keeps little boys in line. Putti
Nice
in the Royal Navy the distinction is clear, and mostly defined by role. Destroyers are anti air platforms, due to their larger space to house air defence systems, and also do other generic tasks when needed (which is often, the Royal Navy is smol), frigates are anti sub platforms which are larger than most nations frigates as they have to also do general patrolling, help out with anti air in a task group or to defend themselves, anti piracy etc.
Yes, but that isn't how they came to be designated as frigates. I will be releasing a video about that in about half an hour. I'm surprised that the people behind this channel don't know the history behind the designations.
Imo modern destroyers and frigates can perform anti air, ship, subs duties... Just that frigates are cheaper mini me destroyers
"For example the US describes a 9000 ton Burke class as a destroyer, Iran may call a 95m Mouch-class ship a destroyer." Thanks. That really gave me a good picture!
While I guess the 9000 ton Burke class might be the bigger ship, mostly because everything is always bigger in the US, the random names Mouch-class(?) and Burke class and the change from tons to meters left me clueless.
Destroyer comes from Villaamil’s Destructor. It was a ship designed to counter TB boats specifically.
I believe the term "destroyer" is obsolete , better stick to the old age of sail nomenclature of "Heavy frigate" or plain "frigate"
frigate are cheaper to build and operate , they also require less manning
not mentioned but frigates are the best ship to learn the commander trade
The US Navy didn't have the class "Frigate" from the end of the "Age of Sail" (around the Civil War) all the way until the 1970's when the USN underwent a restructuring and reclassification. The USN had "Destroyer Escorts" (DE), Destroyers (DD/DDG), and "Destroyer Leaders" (DDL). When the USN reclassified, DE's became "Frigates"; the DE's role was to be "cheaper," more numerous, and tasked with "Escort." The DD/DDG's role was in "Fleet Protection" as well as "Escort" which meant they had anti-submarine and then anti-air as their main focus. The DDL's became "Cruisers" and their goal was "Command and Control" as well as "Fleet Protection"; they were larger because they had CnC requirements and, because they were larger and more complicated, they were also fewer in number. The older "Cruiser" designation that revolved around gun caliber ("Light Cruisers" armed with 6" guns/"Heavy Cruisers" armed with 8" batteries) was dropped as the age of the "Big Gun Cruisers" came to an end.
Well it had one commissioned Frigate from 1797 to the present, the USS Constitution.
Hello Jerry. That's not exactly correct. The Farraguts (1958) were officially designated as Frigates. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
I'm not sure the Littoral Combat Ship shown fits into either Frigate or Destroyer class? Closer to a Frigate, I'd guess.
@@jedironin380the LCS would be either a corvette or a patrol vessel.
wasn't there's FFG OH Perry class frigates? they're quite popular
Wait.. why's the audio literally same as another video "What is the difference between Frigate vs Destroyer" from Military TV 2 years ago
In Nelson’s day, was the Frigate described as bigger than anything faster & faster than anything bigger 🤔
Not mentioned but conspicuous by it's absence is the description for frigates being the designated "meat shield" for larger vessels or the whole fleet.
defining the two classes has become impossible, today - something to do with the defining of reality being politicized by those in power. some like to classify destroyers as being higher in tonnage and armament. this is short-sighted, in lieu of WWII. perhaps, the trend was set there. but, history has it, that the frigate was the ship below the 'ship of the line' e.g. HMS Victory (a ship of the line) and USS Constitution (a true frigate) - the former being a 'battleship' - before the class was ever invented. the latter being an example of a heavily-armed warship, that was fast - and used by pirates...i.e. raiders.
the destroyer came about, as a way to attack capital warships, then submarines, and finally, air-attack...just by purpose alone. it also served as escort. it was perhaps a 'stamp' on a class of warship that was 'meaner' than the frigate.
today's concept of a destroyer is muddled - there's not enough emphasis on surface-warfare. perhaps land-attack - but not surface-to-surface warfare.
the USN has 'heavy-frigates'; the Ticonderoga class, and Arleigh Burke class. they're classified by the USN as 'cruiser' and 'destroyer' respectively, but their roles, and hull-design considerations indicate more 'Heavy Frigate'...or 'Super Frigate' for that matter. you've heard the term 'Super Battleship?'...IJN Yamato and Musashi.
Russia, on the other hand didn't muddle the definitions. When they classed the Kirov class as 'cruiser' that's exactly what it is (for) - a heavy & potent surface combatant with tonnage, and ability to withstand a beating. Same thing with 'destroyers' - the Sovremenny class - a mean, light surface combatant, articulated for that primary purpose.
Top..top
well Germany is in that case diffrent. Our Frigates actually would be considered being Destroyer class vessels but since the word "Destroyer" in german "Zerstörer" was a very popular word being used by the Nazi in WW2, Germany decided to call our Destroyer class vessels Frigates.
This reasoning I still can't process since it feels strange. Because it's just a common word. It's like changing the German word for Car into something else because it was used commonly back then. And there's still naming convention that's a legacy from that era like naming tanks with the name of Cats which is still being done.
But hey, Germany knows what's best for it self.
Jfyi, the current system with frigates being the smaller ships and destroyers being the large combat ships is relatively new. Most Countries have their own "loose" definition. And even in the US frigates were considered the larger and more powerful ships than destroyers. Only in the year 1975 the current designation system in the US came into place. Large frigates were reclassified as Cruisers, while smaller frigates were reclassified as destroyers. While destroyer escorts and ocean escorts were redesignated frigates.
Germany didn't have frigates as a class until the 60's and at the time they and the destroyers in the service of the Federal German Navy where pretty much the same size and of similar capabilities. Mostly, because Germany was not allowed to have ships with a displacement of more than ~3000 tonnes(I'd have to look up the exact figures for that timeframe). Since then all domestically produced ships were designated Frigate. And since the constraint in displacement fell away in the late 80's, the frigates size and capabilities increased to match the new requirements.
@@90enemies
If it's that "strange", why have other nations abandoned the "destroyer" designation, too?
@@ohauss Do they also have the same context as Germany too? Were tose other nation once ruled by a tyrannical government that comitted atrocities and thats the reason why they changed the word?
@@90enemies Not really. France, Denmark and the Netherlands all call their large surface combat vessels frigates.
Thank you, now add in cruisers too. Even though there aren't many left.
Generally today we would say Frigates would be used to protect commercial shipping and patrols closer to the coast.
Destroyers are generally used to protect Battle Carrier Groups from air & subs. I really emphasise "generally" because all Navies are different.
It appear's that the role of Frigates are shifting into two different directions.
Of the top 20 nations to host frigates there appears to be two distinct trend emerging.
Nations with a lot of Ocean are leaning towards frigates as a Primary ASW platform, the focus seem's to be both on making the ships quieter and harder to detect and improving their own ability to detect subs.
Nations with smaller amounts of ocean front seem to focusing more on AA and GP boats.
Chinese has a destroyer doing anti pirate patrol duties @ Africa
Assuming the reporting is correct, the modified Type 26 Frigate Canada will be building at full load will be 9400 tons.
Simple. A destroyer is the smallest ship that’s designed with a primary focus of escorting the carrier battle group.
A frigate is a small, fast ship designed largely for convoy escort. That lends itself to independent operations in less congested environments, and some operations with carriers. Though it has less magazine depth and endurance than larger destroyer cousins.
This is largely true. "Frigates" in the USN were previously called "Destroyer Escorts" and had "Escort" as their primary role. "Destroyers" (DD/DDG) were tasked with "Fleet Protection" and designed to run with (first) the Battle Fleet (pre-WWII), and then the Carrier Battle Group (post WWII). Can a "Destroyer" do the "Escort" mission? Sure, but they were meant to the "Fleet Protection" mission first and foremost. The old "Destroyer Leader" (DDL) classes were eventually reclassified as "Cruisers" and their job was to do the "Command and Control" role in either the Escort of Fleet Protection jobs. But, beginning in the 80's the roles did become blurred. So the "Oliver Hazard Perry" Class (FFG7) could run with the CBG (Carrier Battle Group) as well as doing Escort duties.
That definition would depend heavily on the respective navy having a carrier to protect. So the french could build a destroyer, but the germans could not. Of course the french call all their destroyers frigates because the french term for destroyer, "contre-torpilleur" ("counter-torpedoboat", referring to the original torpedoboat-destroyer designation ), is simply ill-fitting in this age.
@@gildor8866 We’ll see how true that last part is when I find a way to launch Mk 46s off my skiff.
The primary differece between a "Frigate" and a "Destroyer", outside of the 4 major navies (US/UK/JMSDF/PLA-N) is....and this is no joke....the budgetary politics.
In most democracies, you can get the left-wing opposition to fund a "Frigate", but not a "Destroyer".
For example, take the Spanish Navy, their F100-class frigate are actually "Destroyers", but their government does not want to label them "Destroyers" for purely political reasons, so they're called "Destroyer".
are you British by any chance? No one except the Brits would add Uk in the 4 "major navies".
Not to mention that the mission profiles, sizes and capabilities up to approx. the 1960's were attributed to *cruisers* . Military ship class names today are nothing but pure tax payer deception.
More space, fewer guns, fewer boilers, and fewer props on Frigate vs. an Adams Class Destroyer. Berthing was better on a Frigate to me, but I enjoyed serving on a destroyer more.
The frigate class is far older I believe. And cooler.
The terms are elastic and based on national practice; there are no global accepted terms.
A lot of the definition is dependent on the country of origin and its naval history. In the British sense frigates and corvettes were developed in WW2 primarily as convoy escorts for the Atlantic and therefore could be slower and have less surface firepower than a destroyer. In a similar vein the US developed what they initially called the Destroyer escort, what would now be termed a frigate, for a similar anti submarine and escort role though the Pacific campaign wasn't nearly so heavily focused on merchant protection.
Actually, THE ENTIRE definition depends on that. The difference is academic. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
@@TribusMontibus I'll check it out when I have some spare time thanks.
You have this backwards. In my naval experience a Frigate was any fighting ship 20,000 ton and lower where the quarterdeck is dropped down from the main deck where a destroyer is somewhat more varied definition but the ship quarterdeck is in the same line as the main deck and bigger. My ships, the quarterdeck was a HE 325 lb 6 tube mortar in a covered well or a helipad. Littoral work, ASW, convoy defence. With modern tech both designs are obsolete or soon to be.
To make the confusion complete, at 6:27 you are showing a K130 corvette rather than a frigate. 😊
You forgot that in the age of sail many navies including the British Royal Navy, the French navy, the Spanish, and most navies from colonies of those great powers defined a frigate as a ship with 3 masts and a single gun deck (not counting the quarterdeck and forecastle which were usually armed), so a ship armed with twenty guns all 9 pounders for a 90lb broadside would be a frigate as would a Razee (a ship that was once a 2-3 deck ship of the line but had the upper decks removed, leaving you with something similar to the USA's heavy frigates active around the time of the war of 1812 like Constitution) which may be rated as a 44 gun ship but have 50+ guns, in some cases mostly 32 pounder guns with maybe a few 64 pounder carronades as well, so have a broadside of over 800 pounds, and of course the ships originally built as or like (as with the 6 US frigates) ships of the line of battle would have had much thicker hulls.
Yes, you could define it as such. But then again, it was a sliding scale. Some would barely consider the heavy American frigates to be 'true frigates'. The difference is rather academic if you ask me.
6:35 "destroyers tend to defend themselves against a modern threat and protect enemy ships in the composition"
So are you saying destroyers crews are traitors?
Please have someone else watch the video before uploading in future, saying a destroyer protects enemy ships is either a significant mistake or questioning the loyalty of destroyer crews, I can only assume this was supposed to be "protect against enemy ships" and you forgot to say the word "against".
The best illustration of the difference between a frigate and a destroyer that I had was sailing from Portsmouth, England on a ferry to France.
Portsmouth is the Royal Navy's home port and seeing Type 23 Frigates berthed next to Type 45 Destroyers shows the difference in scale between the two types (incidentally both of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers were also berthed which put the Destroyers into perspective too) - a true destroyer is a much bigger ship than a frigate at least in British usage.
thanks you sir
Ironically the new type 26 frigates will be about the same size as the type 45 destroyers.
I'm a bit surprised that you can't put your finger on the real explanation. The 'Why is it a Frigate'-video on my channel explains it. The difference isn't a matter of unclear generalizations. It's simply a matter of naval history and differing cultures.
1:02 the formidable class frigate my most fav ship
We in Germany have the Sachsen-Class frigate. In NATO it is listed as a destroyer but the German constitution not allows to have destroyers. So we call all big ships frigates and the small ones corvettes. In Japan for example their aircraft carriers is named as helicopter destroyer because the Japanese constitution does not allow to have carriers.
Greetings from Munich/Germany
The difference is academic. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
When we had visiting Navy pers. I used to call them boats. They hated that.
What about the Type 26 that is all but a Destroyer why do we in the UK call that a frigate
I think what happened is that we set out saying "we need x number of frigates," and then the salesmen, I mean lobbyist cornered the admirals and the congress critters, an song and danced them into all the add ons until we basically just bought destroyers.
Or what actually happened is the navy in their infinite wisdom basically set the requirements of the "frigate"everybody in the ship building community knows its a destroyer....
are you the same guy from Military TV?
wow, i saw my country ship 🇲🇾, 0:05.
This is made even more complicated by navies like the Royal Australian Navy calling the Hobart class a destroyer with a tonnage of 7000 and then you have the Hunter class frigate weighing in at 8800t
yes you are correct in your comments , but i did read only last week that the new Hunter Class Frigate is possibly going to be around 10,000 ton. Lets hope it has at least a 64 VLS capability.
💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰 Semper Fi
Destroyers are/were fleet ships meant to protect battleships/cruisers from torpedo boats & then from air attacks evolving into long range fleet escorts (USN)
Frigates are medium sized independent and/or convoy escorts ... weight wise in between cruisers & corvettes & medium range (rest of navies)
= so basically just two different names for exavtly the same thing
aviso sloop corvette destroyer escort frigate patrol gunship light cruiser = same ship different names
LOl! 3:17 he's just reading from the first paragraph of the wikipedia page for destroyers.
The new US Frigates are larger by about 3000 tons than the Perry's, US Destroyers are not that much bigger.... so, they are very blurred lines. I am not sure it really matters anymore in the US Fleet.
their roles are different
AB class destroyers range from 8100 to 9500 long tons depending on which flight, where the Perry class was 4100 long tons. So lets just round down and say 5,000 long tons to make math easier, that is a 11,200,000 pound difference. That is huge. Frigates are smaller, generally don't have ballistic missile defense(some do though) and generally have better range. They do better hunting down submarines do to their faster movement where destroyers and cruisers are meant to protect the fleet from air attack and also submarine.
@@ThatCarGuy OHP Class 4100 / Sprucan 8000 /// Constellation class 7300 & ALB Class 9500 seems like the class of ship is growing The Charles Adams Class destroyer was 4500
@@mrjumbly2338 All ships are, the newer zumwalt destroyers are almost 16,000 long tons. Destroyers are much bigger and more heavily armed.
The lines are blurred. China Type 055 destroyers are larger than US cruisers. Perhaps some of their patrol boats are even larger than Arleigh Burke destroyers.
It depends on how their govt naming what type of ship. My country Philippines received the former USCG Cutters and the Philippines navy formaly called them frigates.
The german frigateclass "Baden-Würtemberg" has nearly the same size as the british type45-class destroyer.
Huge grey area, however, my understanding is that a destroyer is more offense oriented.
While a frigate is more defense oriented.
The difference is which navy owns it. The UK type 22 destroyer became a frigate after it was sold to România
I actually thought destroyers were designed solely for anti-submarine and are smaller than frigates. Looks like I learned something new.
Whatever happen to the corvette class of warships?
They're essentially utility ships now
It's awkward to classify today's warships w/ just few terms but 1 thing is clear: frigate is a cool term while destroyer is too generic, so unsurprising if other states would name their destroyers as frigates
So a Frigate can be a destroyer and a destroyer can be a frigate i got it now
Mostly 150 to 200 sailors and more things that go boom at a longer range.
In thumbnail its corvette not a frigate
Kamorta class to be specific
My 2 cents, of the ocean going warships designed to defeat other surface combatants
Corvette = ultra light weight class, needs umbrella protection from other threats like submarines and aircraft.
Frigate = light weight class, usually multirole but can also be tailored for a specific task ASW or Air warfare. Does not need umbrella protection. Eg an ASW frigate can hunt submarines but also defeat enemy surface combatants if it gets within range
Destroyer = medium weight class, strong multirole capablity and able to divert resources to protect other ships, (i.e. undertake effective escort or carriers, supply ships, convoy etc)
Cruiser = heavy weight class, like a destroyer but more capable.
Then explain how some frigates are significantly larger and heavier than the destroyers they replaced.
"Destroyer" is a label that some countries use while others have phased it out.
Welll tonage isnt relevant to compare with both being used as multipurpose most of the time its deployment range that makes the diference or how said larger tonage is used to increase fuel. By WW2 stadrards most modern destroyers are Cruisers. The problem with modern ship there is no clear identifyer like in the past. Even fast atack crafts can carriy (in small numbers) the main anti ship weapons of some cruiser. In WW2 there were destroyers that rivialed smaler cruisers but even then the endurance diference clearly set them apart. Depending on doctrine that isnt the case anymore today.
At this point frigates are just cheaper destroyers. Baring some major war shifting things, at this rate (for the US at lest) I see destroyers getting bigger until they hit a point somewhere around half the size or so of what cruisers used to be (and I mean real cruisers like the Long Beach class) in which case the cruisers class type gets discontinued with destroyers taking over their role and frigates get to be around the size of current destroyers.
The difference is rather academic. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
They are terms that vary in meaning depending on who is saying them and in what context. This is because of traditional use of the words , use of the words in treaties to cripple adversary navies, use in violating treaties by changing the names of things, and use of the words to get funding for something the political powers don't want to fund by renaming it. Yes, it's a big mess.
Wasn't there a ship type called "subchaser" ? I think my uncle served on one in ww2.
There was and those ships ofthen were either based or modified minesweeper hulls.
I am afraid your thinking is outdated. For example the Australian Hobart Class Destroyer is 7,000 tons vs the new Hunter class Frigates that are 8,800 tons and of equal of superior weaponry / capability. Its really just a name.
Political definition overrides all the factors you listed. Japanese calls their carrier frigate.
Trend of more Missiled Heavyweight-Frigate with multirole replaces Destroyer.
I think a destroyer makes 30+ knots to keep up with a carrier strike group
At 9000 tonnes shouldn’t zumwalt (and others) be a cruiser… and as I type you’ve covered this. I still think a modern frigate is a light cruiser and a modern destroyer is a heavy cruiser. So different from the original 1000 to 2000 tonne destroyers
Hello David. The difference really is academic. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
Just like how Pakistan calls its type 21 frigates “destroyers” for some reason maybe because after their modernization they’ve been given more missiles? Because they have the ly-60 SAM and harpoon missiles
When a modern Frigate turns up others pay attention ships smaller not so much. Hey look at that Warship
200iq: I saw a F printed on the ship I assumed it’s a frigate.
German frigates (Baden Württemberg class) would easily qualify as destroyers as they are the best in the world and have the size and capability.
lol, the F125 is a glorified long-range corvette, it hardly qualifies for frigate *or* destroyer in anything but size and endurance. No ASW capability except what the helo can do, limited anti-surface capability (8x Harpoon, 1x 5inch gun), no anti-air capability expect for RAM CIWS for self-defence. It's designed for asymetrical warfare like piracy suppression but that's pretty much it.
You could argue the F124 Sachsen-class to be an (air-defence) destroyer but the Baden-Württemberg? No way.
Then the question? Why you need frigate...if you have a destroyer that can have double the firepower of frigate with the same armament loadout .
Yes what is really the difference between the destroyer and frigates wherein they are the same destroyer ships.
The battleship turret is heavier than a both ships.
There's no legal definition, for example Danish Navy Iver Huifeldt class Frigate is 140 meters long, 6600 tons, larger and carry more weapon than most destroyer, yet it's a "FRIGATE"
Meanwhile Iran categorize small 1500 tons Mowj Class as "DESTROYER" even though that ship smaller than most corvette 😂
Corvette vs Challenger
The difference between a Frigate and a Destroyer is that a Frigate only has a gun. Where as a Destroyer has both a Gun and a SAM. At least, that's what Ace Combat has taught me 😆😆
In that case Ace Combat is totally wrong. The difference is academic. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
This is mostly nonsense. US Navy has 0 frigates: They just don't use the term. Many other Navies (e.g. Dutch) have 0 destroyers: They just don't use the term. Role, size, bow shape, none of that matters anymore. Convention per Navy is the only correct answer.
Frigates, small fast heavily armed, not heavily armoured, whereas Destroyers are larger heavier, heavily armed and armoured and built to take more punishment than a frigate.... Or so I thought..
Frigates are multi role though. Sure they have a primary role but they do do other stuff.
The difference is academic. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
Frigates also have 6 Torpedo Tubes, and 2 Helicopter Hangers and a number of different types of missiles!!!
Frigate vs Corvette?
You talk too much. As per your point of view frigate is a ship with a displacement of 2000- 5000 tons but my friend in India we have Shivalik Class Frigates Displacement 6200 Tons and it's successor Nilgiri Class Frigates Displacement 6670 tons. These ships are capable to hunt enemy ship, submarine, missile and aircrafts..
Even French FREMM class 6000 tons and Italian Carlo Bergamini 6700 tons are called frigate....
So is there any difference between a frigate or Destroyer.
we cant afford a destroyer so frigate this will have to do😂
Ah but what’s the difference between a frigate and destroyer escort?
Generally speaking, the frigate is the destroyer of countries with more limited finances and ambitions at sea. Each fleet builds what it thinks it needs
It is more a political thing today. Destroyers are moreortheless battle ships, at least cruisers. They are as heavy than cruisers and more expensive than battleships where. But they get a name like a small 1500 ts destroyer of WWII (to protect a convoy especially against submarines, Not used to operate on their own) to sound cheaper to the people ("We just built 10 destroyers!"). In Germany, we don't use destroyer anymore. It sounds too aggressive so we use frigate or korvette. This sounds more like a small ship out of old english pirate films. So the 10.000 ts F126 for 1.32 billion euros (1.5 billion USD) each, is not a cruiser, not even a destroyer, it is a frigate.
Why about a Corvette then?
Okay, no way would you have the Aircraft Carrier in front of the destroyer or cruisers. Even with submarines.
To put it in football terms Frigates are like your running backs and Destroyers are like your offensive line
Today there is no difference between destroyer and frigates,fir example Indian navy consider its 7000 tonnes naval ship as frigate whereas some countries navies consider there 6000 tonne ship as destroyer .
actually for India the heaviest Frigate will be the Nilgiri which is expected to be around 6700 tons. Anything above 7000 tons in the modern day is a Destroyer.
Nowadays there is barely any difference between cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. We have the Alvaro De Vazan class frigates which are destroyers in any other navy. China has the 055 destroyer which is seen as a cruiser in the US navy. The Japanese have a carrier which they classify as a destroyer. Russia calls its carriers as cruisers. It’s up to you what you think a warship should be labeled. It’s nothing new. The Courageus class was NOT a battlecruiser . The Graf Spee class was NOT a heavy cruiser. And the Alaska class was NOT a battlecruiser. Only people who know about military history would understand.
Hello Jose. You are absolutely right. I have just uploaded the 'Why is it a Frigate'-video to my channel. It's a bit long, but explains exactly how and when all the destroyer/frigate confusion started.
To save your time.
Destroyer is bigger than frigate, frigate is bigger than corvette.
- End
I know their definition and know that it is the official one. But either it's out of date or Germany is stupid. because somehow every German frigate is a destroyer by this definition.