r_anderson@banzai.enet.dec.com (Rick Anderson) (05/01/91)
From: r_anderson@banzai.enet.dec.com (Rick Anderson)
Does anyone have good definitions for the differences
between a destroyer, frigate and cruiser? Differences
such as speed, armament, maneuverability, crew size, primary
role are what I am looking for.
Thanks in advance!
--
Rick Anderson Digital Equipment Corporation
UUNET: ...{decwrl|decvax}!nova.enet.dec.com!r_anderson
Internet: r_anderson%nova.enet.dec@decwrl.dec.com swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (05/01/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) > Does anyone have good definitions for the differences between a destroyer, > frigate and cruiser? Differences such as speed, armament, maneuverability, > crew size, primary role are what I am looking for. The below information applies to the U.S. Navy. There is some confusion about the difference between a frigate and a destroyer as the frigate is taking over operations that were previously carried out by destroyer. Although a frigate have modern anti-submarine weapons and sensors similarly to those on board destroyers, they lack the guns, electronics, 30 knot speeds, and in most cases the surface-to-air missiles which the Navy considers necessary for modern anti-air warfare and surface warfare operations. Generally, the larger and heavier the ship is, the less maneuverable it is. Frigate: smallest warship, used primarily for escort duty. Probably most maneuverable of all warships. Destroyer: armed with guns, torpedoes, and depth charges, and has a very high maneuverability. Cruiser: long cruising radius, less armor and firepower than battleship. Battleship: largest size warship (excluding aircraft carriers), carrying the greatest number of guns and batteries, and clad with the heaviest armor. Examples in the United States Navy: Frigate: USS OLIVER HAZARD PERRY: 2,750 tons light 4,100 tons full load 29 knot speed 206 men One 3" gun, 6 torpedo tubes Destroyer: USS ARLEIGH BURKE: 6,625 tons light 8,315 tons full load 30+ knot speed 303 men One 5" gun, six torpedo tubes Cruiser: USS Virginia: 8,623 tons light 11,300 tons full load 30+ knot speed 558-634 men Two 5" guns, six torpedo tubes Battleship: USS New Jersey: 46,177 tons light 57,353 tons full load 35 knot speed 1518 men Nine 16" guns Source: Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-91 Steve Williams
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (05/01/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> Actually, all major surface combatants being built or that are in service today are all pretty much the same size and have more or less the same crew complement. As a matter of fact, the Spruance class DD, the Kidd class DDG, and the Ticonderoga Class CG all use the same hull and engineering plant. The main distinguishing feature is cost: cruisers cost more than destroyers, destroyers more than frigates. Surface combatants and their missions: FF: ASW primary, ASUW secondary FFG: AAW primary, ASW secondary, ASUW very limited capability DD: ASW primary, ASUW secondary DDG: AAW primary, ASW & ASUW secondary CG/CGN: AAW primary, ASUW secondary, ASW moderate capability BB: ASUW primary, Land Attack secondary -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213 The opinions in this post/mail are only those of the author, nobody else.
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (05/02/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) Ahhh, the great political distinction of the classes! This is a real hot political potato, since the number of cruisers, frigates, and destroyers we're allowed to have is a big issue. The easy distinction is regarding frigates. While frigates may be of comparable displacement to destroyers, they invariably will have just one screw (a la the McNamara School of Cost Effectiveness at operational expense). Distinguishing between destroyers and cruisers is a much trickier business -- especially since the Aegis cruisers are built on Spruance hulls. A naive method would be to classify them by means of warfare areas, but the KIDD-class DDGs (the "Ayatollah" class) have a very capable AAW ability annd ASW suite. Also, once the DDGs are outfitted with the Mk 41 VLS, they'll be able to handle such systems as SM2s, Tomahawks, and the ever-elusive VLA (Vertical Launched ASROC) in a vertical-launch mode. So, if it has one screw, it's an FF or FFG. Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine... -shane
freeman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jay Freeman) (05/02/91)
From: freeman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jay Freeman) Frigates, FF's and FFG's are what used to called Destroyer Escorts, DE's. Their primary role is convoy escort, with an emphasis on ASW. An FFG, however posesses some AAW capabilty (the G means Guided Missile) although its primary mission remains ASW. Destroyers (DD's and DDG's) are larger (usually) than FF's and more heavily armed. A DD's primary mission is also ASW but it will normally have 1 or more guns for ASUW and NGFS capability . A DDG actually has 2 primary missions, AAW and ASW. Cruisers are larger, heavier and more heavily armed (usually) than Destroyers. CA (heavy cruiser) and CL (light cruiser) have not been in service anywhere in the world in several years, with the sole exception of 2 Sverdlov CL's in the Soviet Navy. CG's (guided missile cruisers) are the premier AAW platform in navies which can afford them. Many CG's also have secondary ASW, ASUW, NGFS, and Strike warfare missions. Hope this helps, Jay -- 73 de Jay, WT9S Internet: freeman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Packet: wt9s@n9hhi.il.usa.na
Scott.Hallmark@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark) (05/02/91)
From: Scott.Hallmark@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark) Frigate top speed is about 30 kts. Primary mission is ASW therefore it's armament would consist of ASROC and/or torpedos. It's secondary mission would be ASuW and Local AAW defence which would require SM-1 SAMs, Vulcan-Phalynx CIWS and 5"54cal. or 76.2mm gun. It is a highly manuverable platform with a crew of about 200. Destroyer speed of about 30 kts. Primary mission of ASuW/AAW with a secondary mission of ASW. Armament consist of 5"54 cal.gun/s SM-1 and Tarter SAMs, Harpoon ASMs and CIWS and/or NATO Sea Sparrow. Along with ASROC and/or torpedos. Not as manuverable as a Frigate. And a crew of about 300 to 400. Cruiser is about the same as a destroyer in mission speed and crew except for the nuclear powered cruisers and the command & control cruiser which have a larger crew of about 450 to 800 on ships like the USS Long Beach. Most cruisers also have the capability to carry Tomahawk weapon system. Scott Hallmark ex-EW1(SW) USS Missouri
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/03/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) [Further followups to soc.history, please; this is getting rather far to sea... --CDR] A quick bit of history (hey, it's technological :-)) may be of interest in regard to where the types came from. This has only the loosest relationship to the current use of the names. A battleship was, well, a battle ship: a first-rank fighting ship that could be a full participant in a major naval battle. This generally meant a large ship with heavy armament and (more recently) heavy armor. Speed was important because the faster fleet controlled the range at which a battle was fought. Cruising range was (reluctantly) relegated to a secondary consideration when steam replaced sail. (One reason why imperial powers tended to own little bits of land all over the place -- e.g., the Falklands -- was to provide coaling stations for battle fleets.) Cruisers specialized in long-range cruising. Their job was protection of trade routes, or attacks on same, so range and seakeeping ability took priority over armament and armor. Of course, when a major battle was in the offing, everything handy was pressed into service, so cruisers were also used for scouting and other fleet-support jobs. "Destroyer" is a shortened form of "torpedo-boat destroyer". When torpedos became a practical weapon, small fast torpedo boats clearly presented a real threat to large warships. One answer was a class of small fast warships, large enough to decisively deal with a torpedo boat, small enough to be deployed in large numbers and to be seriously fast. Destroyers quickly acquired torpedos of their own, and saw much use as, so to speak, combat- strength torpedo boats. Destroyer escorts were specialized convoy escorts, a role which became important when submarines became a practical weapon against trade routes. These were small ships (so they could be deployed in large numbers) with some specialization for long range and seakeeping; heavy weaponry was not really needed because submarines were not formidable surface combatants. Escorts' size and complexity eventually escalated when submerged torpedo attack without warning became the normal operating method for subs and sonar was developed as a countermeasure. Battle cruisers were a curious aberration, essentially light battleships with higher speed at the cost of very light armor. The intent was to make life rough for cruisers scouting for battle fleets, but this was quickly defeated when the other guys started building battlecruisers too. They worked well in the few cases where they got to function as intended -- wreaking havoc on smaller and less well-armed ships -- and poorly when facing equal or superior ships. There are probably a few classes I've missed, but that's all my memory is willing to produce at the moment, aside from a few more obvious ones like aircraft carriers. The advent of airplanes, missiles, and nuclear weapons threw everything into utter confusion, not helped by massive cost escalation that imposed strong pressures for fewer and smaller ships, and I'm not sure anybody has ever done a from-scratch rethinking of what classes of ships would be best deployed today. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (05/04/91)
From: eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Once upon a time (WWII) we had in order of increasing size:
DE(destroyer escort), DD(destroyer), CL (light cruiser), CA (heavy
cruiser), battle cruisers (BC and CC were I think both used, but the
US only built a couple), battleships (BB) plus aircraft carriers (CV
and CVA for auxiliary), submarines (SS) and support ships.
A World War II light cruiser was in the 6000 ton range with 5 or
6" guns. Destroyers were much lighter (about 2500 tons tops) and were
usually equipped with 3" or 4" guns until the immanence of war
convince Congress and the Navy that we needed lots of ships FAST, and
with lots of firepower. The trading of 99 destroyers to the Brittish
implied that what we needed was to replace these destroyers, but the
Fletcher class destroyers heavily gunned and were more than a match
for most light cruisers in the fleet. (Nine 5" guns, the same ones
that are secondary armament on the active BB's.) They weren't designed
for long range cruising however, but come the war, the did a lot of it.
By the end of the war, the DD's had taken over most of the
traditional cruiser roles, except as command ships for battle groups,
and the American surface navy could be described as a lot of
destroyers, with a smattering of battleships and aircraft carriers
thrown in.
Subsequent to the war the Navy has gone through a lot of twists
and turns to get basically back to the pre-WWII situation. Frigates
were originally introduced as big destroyers (but those frigates
are once again called cruisers), and the current frigates are the size
of pre-WWII destroyers and destroyer escorts, and fill the same role.
So the mapping is:
pre/early WWII now
DE FF
DD FFG
CL DD/DDG
CA CA
BB BB
The really confusing part is that some ships now designated as
cruisers were built as destroyers or frigates.
--
Robert I. Eachus
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...hon@scs.carleton.ca (Edmund Hon) (05/04/91)
From: hon@scs.carleton.ca (Edmund Hon)
In the midst of this great discussion of distinguishing frigates and
destroyers, allow me to drop a little note here.
In the Royal Navy, it is always (OK, at least in the post WW2 era)
frigates for ASW duties, and destroyers for fleet air defence. Size
is never a factor in deciding which ship is a DDG or a FF.
example:
Type 42 Destroyer
Displacement (tons): 3500 standard; 4100 full
Dimensions (feet): length: 392 (waterline)
412 (overall)
width: 47
Armament: Sea Dart SAM (Also has a limited capability as SSM)
1 x 4.5" Mk8 cannon
2 x 20mm Oerlikon
2 x triple mount AS torpedo launchers
Lynx Mk 2 helicopter.
Note i) Data for Batch 1 and Batch 2 ships
ii) This class used to be called the "Sheffield" class, but
since HMS Sheffield was sunk during the Falklands, it
has always been just "Type 42". HMS Sheffield now re-
borned as a Type 22 (Batch 2) frigate.
Type 22 Frigate ("Broadsword" class)
Displacement (tons): 3500 standard; 4400 full (Batch 1)
4100 standard; 4800 full (Batch 2)
4200 standard; 4900 full (Batch 3)
Dimensions (feet): Batch 1:
Length: 410 (waterline)
430 (overall)
width: 48.5
Batch 2 & 3:
Length: 485.8 (overall)
width: 48.5
armament: SSM: 4 x Exocet (Batch 1 & 2)
8 x Harpoon (Batch 3)
2 x 6 barrel Sea Wolf SAM
2 x triple AS torpedo launcher
Guns: 1 x 4.5" Mk 8 (Batch 3)
1 x Goalkeeper CIWS (Batch 3)
4 x twin 30mm (Batch 3)
2 x 20mm; 2x 40mm (Batch 1, 2)
Lynx helicopter.
Note: The Sea Wolf only has a range of 3 nm, and is usually
regarded as a point difense missle.
Jane's NATO Warships Handbook
"Harpoon" - Modern Naval Wargame Rules
--
hon@hans.scs.carleton.cathornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (05/05/91)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley)
>(Summary of ship types deleted, more accurate information substituted.)
From the end of WWI, the primary warship types were DD (destroyer),
CL (light cruiser), CA (heavy cruiser), BB (battleship), CV
(carrier), and SS (submarine). The heavy cruisers that served in
WWII were originally classified as light cruisers, but were
reclassified after the old armored cruisers had been retired and
the London naval treaty established two classes of the old light
cruisers.
At the end of WWI, the Navy finished a batch of destroyers of about
1100 tons with 4" guns, and had a lot of difficulty getting money
from Congress to buy new destroyers. The first newer ones were built
in the late 20s, displaced about 1400 tons, and mounted 5" guns.
Building destroyers continued at a leisurely pace until war became
imminent. Many of the older destroyers had been scrapped or converted,
and 50 of them were sent to Britain to be used as convoy escorts, and
so it was much easier to get funding for improved destroyers. The
Fletcher class, possibly the most important wartime class, displaced
2050 tons and mounted five 5" guns; the largest U.S. destroyers of
the war were the 2400 ton Gearing class.
The light cruisers left from WWI were about 8000 tons with 6" guns;
the later ones were about 10,000 tons with more 6" guns, except
for the anti-aircraft cruisers, about 6000 tons with 5" guns. These
were not intended for combat with other cruisers, but could be
effective against destroyers. The light cruiser line culminated
with the Roanoke class, about 15000 tons with twelve automatic
6" guns, and no obvious mission. U.S. prewar heavy cruisers were
9000-10,000 tons, with nine or ten 8" guns. During the war, the
Baltimore class of about 13,500 tons was built; the Salem class
(about 17,000 tons, nine automatic 8" guns) was the culmination
of the gun cruiser in the USN. Along with the rest of the heavy
gun ships, these cruisers were largely dead ends in development.
What happened in WWII is that aircraft took over the traditional
cruiser roles of exercising sea control and scouting. Cruisers were
generally turned into carrier escorts, providing anti-aircraft fire
and protection in the unlikely event of surface combat. Since the
main threat to merchant shipping became the submarine, destroyers
and small, slow carriers (CVEs) took over convoy duty, along with
new cheap and slow ships, of which the most effective were the
larger variety, called destroyer escorts (DEs). At about this time,
the British introduced smaller escort vessels called "frigates" for
no immediately obvious reason, since the "frigate" of sailing-ship
days was actually a cruiser.
After WWII, submarines and aircraft improved drastically, to the point
that the battleship was rendered obsolete in its traditional role.
Surface warships were divided into carrier task force ships and
convoy escort ships, to speak very generally. Large gun ships were
generally irrelevant in either role, and mostly served as shore
bombardment ships in this period. Therefore, development of
surface ships concentrated on destroyers and smaller vessels. The
United States originally called its larger and more powerful
destroyers "frigates", a more appropriate use of the term, but
eventually, with the decline and scrapping of old gun cruisers,
called these ships "cruisers" and their smaller escort ships "frigates",
bringing USN terminology into line with the rest of the world.
Therefore, the major surface combatants of today all descend from WWII
destroyers (I of course except the ones that were built before 1950),
and terminology is still a bit messy. To answer the originally posted
question, whether there is a clear definition of "frigate", "destroyer",
and "cruiser", the answer is "not really".
DHT
[42 lines quoting entire former posting deleted. --CDR]v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (05/09/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes... >battleships (BB) plus aircraft carriers (CV >and CVA for auxiliary), submarines (SS) and support ships. I'm sure that CVA means an attack carrier. Many US carriers had this designa- tion until the retirement of WWII-era carriers dedicated to ASW meant their planes were put onto remaining carriers, making them multi-mission carriers. -- Real name: Paul Stacy V059L49Z@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Alias: Joe Friday V059L49Z@UBVMSD.BITNET SUNY Buffalo, Buff State College Best one->STACY54@SNYBUFVA.BITNET Disclaimer: That which you read is not necessarily the opinion of the school, the police dept., Chief of Detective Staff Brown, Planet Spaceball, Starfleet Command, or the Pentagon. [Please trim your .signature and disclaimer --CDR]
wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) (05/15/91)
From: wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) Paul Stacy writes: >eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes... >>battleships (BB) plus aircraft carriers (CV >>and CVA for auxiliary), submarines (SS) and support ships. > >I'm sure that CVA means an attack carrier. This is correct. "Auxiliary" has a pretty specific meaning in most navies, including our own; it implies a non-combat vessel, such as an oiler or submarine tender, that is under military control. The only exception to this rule I can think of is the British "Auxiliary Merchant Cruisers" of WWII which were intended to fight U-boats and enemy merchant ships. A better way to put this would be to say "a naval vessel which is not a warship," but that relies on an understanding of what constitutes a "warship." In any case (in US terminology) when Auxiliary is part of a designation, it comes first; for instance, AO is an Auxiliary Oiler, AK is an Aux. Dry Cargo Freighter, etc. So if there was such a thing as an auxiliary carrier, it would be AV (which, I believe, is actually a designation for "seaplane tender.") -- Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (05/17/91)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) In article <1991May16.052746.17645@amd.com> wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) writes: >>[previous discussion of CVA, meaning of auxiliary] > >In any case (in US terminology) when Auxiliary is part of a designation, it >comes first; for instance, AO is an Auxiliary Oiler, AK is an Aux. Dry >Cargo Freighter, etc. So if there was such a thing as an auxiliary >carrier, it would be AV (which, I believe, is actually a designation for >"seaplane tender.") At least in WWII, an AV was a seaplane tender. However, the CVEs were originally AVGs (auxiliary aviation ship), then ACVs (auxiliary aircraft carriers). Sometimes ships are clearly warships (like cruisers), some ships are clearly auxiliaries (like AK for cargo ships - these would not, BTW, be referred to as auxiliary cargo ships, cargo ships already being considered auxiliaries), and some are somewhere in between (like the CVEs or British "auxiliary merchant cruisers"). DHT
waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) (05/18/91)
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) >From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >There is some confusion about the difference between a frigate >and a destroyer as the frigate is taking over operations that were Isn't this primarily a political issue. A frigate is smaller than a destroyer so when you ask for frigates people don't tend to look as hard, despite the fact that you're building BIG frigates that do things destroyers used to do. The classic example of this is the British Navy's purchase of a vessel for launching aircraft from as a "through-deck" cruiser, because as we all know a cruiser is much smaller than an aircraft carrier, and so it must be much cheaper. I think people made them give that designation up, but they certainly tried it. -- Matthew Waugh waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com RTP Network Services {world}!mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!waugh Data General Corp. RTP, NC. (919)-248-6344
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/19/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) writes: >Isn't this primarily a political issue. A frigate is smaller than >a destroyer so when you ask for frigates people don't tend to look >as hard, despite the fact that you're building BIG frigates that do >things destroyers used to do. Another example if the DDG Arlie Burke (Sp?) class destroyer. Although it is, in fact, larger than most crusiers, I believe it was sold to congress as "just modernizing our destroyers." Frank Crary UC Berkeley
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (05/20/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> Frank Crary writes: >Another example if the DDG Arlie Burke (Sp?) class destroyer. Although >it is, in fact, larger than most crusiers, I believe it was sold to >congress as "just modernizing our destroyers." The Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class is not larger than most cruisers. It is significantly smaller than a Spruance (DD-963) class destroyer/Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruiser. -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 2/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or 1069 Morewood Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 The opinions in this post/mail are only those of the author, nobody else.
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/21/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >The Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class is not larger than most cruisers. It >is significantly smaller than a Spruance (DD-963) class >destroyer/Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruiser. Arleigh Burke DDG 8200 tons displacement 325 man crew Virginia CGN 8623 530 California CGN 8706 550 Truxtun CGN 8600 534 Bainbridge CGN 7700 541 Long Beach CGN 14200 921 Belknap CG 6570 452 Leahy CG 5670 423 Albany CG 13700 835 Des Moines CA 17255 1800 Ticonderoga CG 6560 395 Spruance DD 5830 324 Issac Kidd DDG 6210 340 Based on the crew size, I guess a Arleigh Burke is a destroyed. However based on displacement, a more common way to compare the sizes of ships, the Burke is larger than many crusiers: it is much larger than other destroyers, about the size of a CGN. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
norton@manta.nosc.mil (LT Scott A. Norton, USN) (05/23/91)
From: norton@manta.nosc.mil (LT Scott A. Norton, USN) The Arleigh Burke class is comperable in displacement to the Kidd DDGs. They are a little longer than the old Adams DDGs, but shorter than the Farragut DDGs. Heres the stats: Burke Kidd Spruance Adams Farragut Tico Virginia DDG DDG DD DDG DDG CG CG 8300 8300 7810 4500 5800 9600 11000 Tons Full Load 466 563 563 437 512 567 585 Length (ft) 59 55 55 47 53 55 63 Beam (ft) The Burke is a fatter hull form, for better seakeeping, at the expense of speed. Its the same size as Kidd by tonnage, which is probably the best measure. I know, from trying to fit a communication system into the Burke class, that it is tight for any cruiser-type missions. LT Scott A. Norton, USN JTIDS Ship Integration Officer <norton@NOSC.MIL>