What is the difference between Frigate vs Destroyer
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/...
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/
Пікірлер: 731
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?
@Military-TV
3 жыл бұрын
Type 055 issophisticated destroyer ever made by china industry, we review here kzread.info/dash/bejne/pX-Fk5OlmNmbYqg.html
@Gongolongo
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Military-TV
3 жыл бұрын
100% That right sir
@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520
3 жыл бұрын
I was hoping he picked it because it’s a cool looking warship, the modern stuff looks bland and boring
@Jin-Ro
3 жыл бұрын
Anything Made in China is inferior and obsolete.
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.
@pauld6967
2 жыл бұрын
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.
The only statement that is correct in all cases is: _one is called a frigate and the other is called a destroyer_ .
@DanA-fk6tl
3 жыл бұрын
It is what we in the UK call...absolute cobblers!
@DrLumpy
3 жыл бұрын
Well, at least the oddly modulated voice said that roughly three hunert and seventy-eleven times
@mikelang7425
3 жыл бұрын
@@DrLumpy and never contradicted what it just said more than three times on the same "point"
As a submariner, we keep it simple. They're just targets.
@MrBonners
3 жыл бұрын
as the subs are for us 'Frigateers'.
@patrickbukowski9667
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@MrBonners
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@CorePathway
2 жыл бұрын
@@patrickbukowski9667 What was the run-time on your torpedoes? Those are silly stats
@Inspadave
Жыл бұрын
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.
@raleeuw
3 жыл бұрын
I whas 7 years in the Dutch Navy in the seventees but this is a never ending story🤔😉👋
@Grafknar
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Grafknar
3 жыл бұрын
@@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. 😂
@raleeuw
3 жыл бұрын
@@Grafknar Yes for excample The Flying Dutchman😜
@PlumbNutz
3 жыл бұрын
Together they are the tin can Navy that is all you need to know.
4:55 " actually destroyers are much smaller than battleships but larger than frigates" *shows ticonderoga class cruiser* lmao
@bostonrailfan2427
3 жыл бұрын
..not the first time too!
@csabakerese4192
3 жыл бұрын
0:22 that was a Ticonderoga too
@paranoidrodent
3 жыл бұрын
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).
@uni4rm
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@businessproyects2615
3 жыл бұрын
Is small compared with a battleship.
"Spy Dolphins"
@BusterBuizel
3 жыл бұрын
Red Alert 3?
@garg_ak
3 жыл бұрын
I had fun with mermaid 😉
@Chickenworm9394
3 жыл бұрын
@@garg_ak Mermaids are no fun. Try Siren
@RexZShadow
3 жыл бұрын
@@BusterBuizel Red Alert 2 had them too.
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.
@pauld6967
2 жыл бұрын
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.
@emre3660
2 жыл бұрын
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...
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.
@justanotherasian4395
3 жыл бұрын
Cruisers turned batrlecruisers
@petesheppard1709
3 жыл бұрын
@@justanotherasian4395 Or just heavy cruisers... :)
@MXB2001
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@bagochips1208
3 жыл бұрын
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
@petesheppard1709
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
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
@NewmaticKe
3 жыл бұрын
I think destroyers have more speed to keep up with an carrrier convoy. Frigates are usually slower
@myms7375
3 жыл бұрын
@@NewmaticKe CODOG frigate can catch up to destroyer though. Cant say the same for CODAD one
@jesperohlrich7090
3 жыл бұрын
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 :)
@masterduel5725
3 жыл бұрын
So frigate are still destroyer but smaller and weaker
@swunt10
2 жыл бұрын
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.
Unless its a European "Frigate" - in which case its actually a Destroyer in all but name.
@gregordomer311
3 жыл бұрын
yep excample, the politicanin germany avoid to clasified her navy ships destroyer, because they will be look more "friendly"
@sagardyenchilwar8762
3 жыл бұрын
Well Britain has destroyers
@death_parade
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@sagardyenchilwar8762
3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@death_parade
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
And, so after all the explanations, photographs, etc. - Please, what is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer? Is there any?
@scotth6814
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@primotef8863
3 жыл бұрын
The difference is completely arbitrary, but some try to slap on specific conditions "because Empire"
@AThousandYoung
3 жыл бұрын
Frigate is smaller than Destroyer
@beageler
3 жыл бұрын
*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.
@militaryanalysis5028
3 жыл бұрын
to keep it simple, basically frigates lack land-attack missiles that only some destroyers have. So Destroyers are more multi-role capable than 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".
@petesheppard1709
3 жыл бұрын
Originally designated Destroyer Escorts.
@Andre-river
3 жыл бұрын
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)?
The more expensive one is clearly the destroyer.
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".
@Magnulus76
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@abdielabraar910
3 жыл бұрын
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
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.
@pauld6967
2 жыл бұрын
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.
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
a frigate with a hypersonic missile is as good as a Destroyer.
@acceptablecasualty5319
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@ThatCarGuy
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@thejordanianphilosopher6666
3 жыл бұрын
@@ThatCarGuy So ICMBs that travel on hypersonic speed are not good?
@thejordanianphilosopher6666
3 жыл бұрын
@@acceptablecasualty5319 Can Hypersonic missiles destroy a destroyer?
@acceptablecasualty5319
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
Q: What is the difference between Frigate vs Destroyer A: One is a type of seabird and the other breaks things
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.
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.
Frigate is also a term used quite frequently in the English language referring to not remembering a certain event. For example; "Frigate about it".
@SentaDuck
3 жыл бұрын
Go home, you're drunk.
So when he says "let us look at the history" it is US History - ha ha ha - Forgetting the Royal Navy History.
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.
I think of Frigates as anti-sub but I think of destroyers as anti-ship
@firdausdwim9710
3 жыл бұрын
Hmmm, if all multi propose :v all in one ship :v
@mickeyg7219
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@sirethanthegreat4069
3 жыл бұрын
Ye same. I got that from Gunship Battle.
@cedriceric9730
3 жыл бұрын
@@mickeyg7219in some countries yes , but major navies like China, uk , USA have their destroyers focused on air , missile defence.
@cedriceric9730
3 жыл бұрын
@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
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.
@navychop6667
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@paranoidrodent
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@mcred9512
3 жыл бұрын
@@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. 😁👍🏼
@paranoidrodent
3 жыл бұрын
@@mcred9512 It is indeed a cruiser, but 'tis a wee one.
@mcred9512
3 жыл бұрын
@@paranoidrodent 😂 Hahaha
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.
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"
Putting it simply. Destroyers work as a part of a group. Always. Frigates can work as a team or go solo. Destroyers are for intimidation and power projection. Frigates are for fighting.
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.
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.
@irvhh143
3 жыл бұрын
Frigging was a main preoccupation back in school
Western countries like Uk,Germany and France operates frigates for mostly single role, either it's Air defence or anti submarine role. While countries like Russia, India and China operates frigates which can perform all roles such as Air defence, anti submarine and land attack/Anti ship role.
@muh1947.
3 жыл бұрын
True words
video is so so.... but commentary section on the other hand, is pure gold, recommend!
Basically, a destroyer is logically bigger and taller than a frigate. But the word "destroyer" is an Anglo-Saxon word, some navies do not use this term, but have ships called frigate equivalent to destroyers ... The word "destroyer" is mostly changed over time, 50 years ago ships called destroyers were barely larger than a mid-size or small frigate of today. Today, a destroyer as American propaganda wants it is almost a cruiser. But hey, it would be easier to call all these ships "frigate", the destroyer being just a large frigate. In the French navy, the word frigate (frégate) is used for the Aquitaine class, but it bears the lettering "D" on its hull, accoding to Nato code, it is a large frigate (officially Destroyer) equipped with alot of armaments and cruise missiles (only frigate in the world to have cruise missiles), the Lafayettes for example are also called "frigates", but they are two times less heavy, and carry the letter "F" on the hull, but as France does not have the word "destroyer" in its vocabulary, it is frigate, it is the same in some other navies. A Destroyer is just a large frigate, according to American vocabulary.
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.
@ruel1072
3 жыл бұрын
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.
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.
I never seen a video that contradicts itself so much.
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.
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.
@georgepantazis141
3 жыл бұрын
I think the Arleigh Burks were Frigets at conception.
@pyroman6000
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@SirZanZa
3 жыл бұрын
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
@bostonrailfan2427
3 жыл бұрын
except the Burkes are smaller than the US cruisers
@bostonrailfan2427
3 жыл бұрын
@@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
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".
@lolbots
3 жыл бұрын
Canadians are generally clueless
@rogueporpoise5119
3 жыл бұрын
Sounds like something an FFG sailor would say....
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
@bostonrailfan2427
3 жыл бұрын
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
F221 "Fregatte Hessen" Veteran. Cool seeing it in the video.
I enlisted in USMC in 1966, but grew up loving ships. Cruisers were in between battleships and destroyers. Remember USS Indianapolis was as. Ruiser
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.
@swunt10
2 жыл бұрын
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.
No mention of Destroyer Escorts. Which were in fact Frigates.
@jeffburnham6611
3 жыл бұрын
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.
*Thanks sir for such good explanation, now i know what is different among frigate corvette destroyer cruiser!* Greetings from sunda empire
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.
Jack Webb, aka "Sargent Joe Friday" as a narrator. Interesting.
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.
@petergray7576
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@joshnelson6750
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
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
@grege2383
3 жыл бұрын
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
@robbybee70
3 жыл бұрын
@@grege2383 what do you mean by surface threat, like destroyers went out and engaged battleships? that doesn't seem right
@Harldin
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@grege2383
3 жыл бұрын
@@robbybee70 other Navy's have small boats, Frigates, and other surface vessels that are capable of doing damage to the battlegroup
@alpearson9158
Жыл бұрын
frigates have been around for centuries but the ships have moved all over the map when designations are considered
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.
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.
Finally a video without a stupid robotic voice
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.
Modern names are based on the policies of the state that has the ship. You may find destroyers of 5000 tons and frigates of 8000 tons that are also much better armed. But usually not in the same navy. Similarly one navy may call its 2000 ton warship as frigate if it's its bigger warship but other navies will call it a corvette. This has to do with the missions the ship will get as a corvette will be accompaying larger warships while the frigate will be the big boy in a navy that lacks a destroyer. If a 6000 ton ship is used in a navy to escort a destroyer it's usually called a frigate. If it's the main ship of a navy it may be called a destroyer. Also "destroyer" sounds a big menacing and expensive ship. So if a country wants to show that "no,non, we don't spend much in the miliary", it names it a frigate even if it's 7000 tons. But if a country wants to boost the morale of its nation and pretend it has a powerful navy it will name its 1000 ton ships "frigates" and its 3000 ton ships "destroyers".
Germany replaced the Lütjens class Destroyers with Frigates that were significantly larger and has retired the designation "Destroyer". So, if anything, this should be limited to "How do SOME navies differentiate between Frigate and Destroyer"
So it really boils down to whatever the owner calls it.
One "Frigates" things, the other "Destroys" things. I dunno. Had to come up with something.
my understanding is frigates meant to defend, and destroyers meant to destroy enemies, basically destroyers acting as secondary firepower of the fleet
I find displacement to be best.. Not perfect but solid with some play room of course ..... Under 2k = Corvette 2k to 5k = Frigate 5k to 10k = Destroyer 10k to 15k= Crusier 15k to 40k= Battlecrusier/ Ampib Assualt Ship/ Helio Carriers/ Landing Dock/ Command ship 40k + True Carriers and Battleships
Frigates for the US navy tend to be slower then destroyers, as such don't provide escort duty for fast groups such as carriers. A Frigate will instead escort landing ships, marine ships, freighters, and such. Essentially they take the roll of the old Ocean corvettes of ww2. The problem is, destroyers can suffer from the same "mission sets" as frigate... with some countries fielding Anti-Ship Destroyers, that lack ASW capabilities, ASW Destroyers, and such. Perfect example of this is Russia who operate an ASW destroyer, and an ASM destroyer combined in groups to make up for each others short comings while escording a cruiser. one interesting thing though is, frigates tend to be slower on average, 25-29 knots... rarely exceeding 32 knots. Where destroyers generally are in the 30-36 knot range. SO in truth, now Frigate tend to do the convoy escort, while destroyer does the Military escort - with frigates being more defensive, and destroyers more offenisve
The navy owning the ship defines it. For example, in the US Navy Frigates are generally defined by size and have typically been the smallest ships capable of prolonged blue water action far from home port. Everything from dedicated sub hunters to balanced convoy escort designs have been classed as Frigates in the US Navy. In the Royal Navy however, ships are classed based on role and the Frigate is a blue water anti submarine ship, regardless of size.
a destroyer not just because of size but is more heavily armed than a frigate. both have guns and stuff but thats a common thing in warships period.
At one point the USN used the different terms to differentiate machinery. Frigates had one set of machinery and one screw, destroyers had two.
"No spy dolphins were harmed in the making of this video." ;-)
They excluded the Destroyer Escort classification before they went to Frigate again in the 1975
This is mostly only relevant to the US and British navies. Most other countries don't have a problem describing a small antisubmarine vessel as a destroyer.
@HingerlAlois
3 жыл бұрын
Not necessarily, the German Navy for example calls the Sachsen class a frigate although it’s larger and more powerful than the Lütjens class destroyers that it replaced…
Destroyers also typically have a Flag cabin, Frigates do not. When a Aircraft Carrier cannot make port, say in Naples, Italy, it anchors a couple miles out. The Flag (Admiral) is transferred to said Destroyer which docks at the pier for the weekend or however long the port call is. During this time the Admiral (aka the Flag) resides in the Flag cabin.
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.
So destroyers are more competent versions of frigates?
@douglasearnest4381
3 жыл бұрын
You're close. Frigates are cheaper versions of destroyers.
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.
Commodores are now called Rear Admiral lower half
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.
Video made the difference between the two clear-- clear as mud.
I would expect a channel called "Military TV" to be more read on what modern frigates are like. For example, the Canadian Surface Combatant, (like its Type 26 counterparts in Australia) Will weigh about the same or even more as the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. They also will carry the most advanced radar to date(Spy7). They will be equipped with just about anything a destroyer carries, and better suited with quieter hulls/propulsion to ASW. The main difference I can see is that the frigates will be more versatile in that they will be required to do all things all the time, whereas a destroyer will mostly bring offensive firepower for prolonged attacks/defense in attacking land/sea targets, or providing defensive weapons in anti air operations. A frigate will have to store weapons for submarines , humanitarian, special operations, etc.. more so than a destroyer. The differences are too slight nowadays because frigates are getting heavier and more equipped at air protection. The lines are blurred more than they ever have. To say a frigate tops out at 5000 tonnes is dated. Modern frigates are around 700 to 8000 and the Type 26 with Spy7 will come in at 9500?
2:37 *i can see corvette class KD Lekir from RMN side by side with USS Bunker Hill .. it looks so small enough😂
В видео много старинных фото, которые я виду впервые. Спасибо вам за них!
First of all, the terms Cruiser, Destroyer, Frigate and Corvette [ and, for that matter, the terms "Cutter" and "Battleship" ] TODAY are generally interchangeable and they can all be built to whatever tonnage and capability you want them to be, in order to carry the necessary weapons systems you want them to carry .. this is because A] the TONNAGE of combat ships has grown drastically over the last 40 years and B] Missile technology has allowed missiles to be computer controlled so they can pretty much do any mission that used to be controlled by Guns and Torpedoes -- and, as a result, they can all do more than one mission and generally "replace" each other .. but the terms have nothing to do with tonnage .. there is no "law" that states a Cruiser has to be larger than a Destroyer or a Destroyer has to be larger than a Frigate or a Frigate has to be larger than a Corvette or a Cutter has to be limited to "shore patrol" .. at one time - WW2 and into the early 1970s, these terms all referred to the ship's mission capability .. Cruisers were generally built to be self-sustaining - ie: they could go out on their own .. and Destroyers were built to "protect the Carriers" - but because of limited tonnage, Destroyers had to either a] be submarine hunters, b] be anti-ship hunters .. or c] be anti-air hunters -- they couldn't do all three .. and they weren't big enough to support a "Flag Officer" for command an control duties .. so the cruisers were pulled back into the TASK FORCE and turned into flag capable command and control ships with I think anti-ship defenses, destroyers were given anti-air defenses and Frigates were given anti-sub defenses .. and Corvettes and Cutters were basically give "shore patrol" .. these duties were change and modified over the decades .. some cruisers were redesignated destroyers and some destroyers were redesignated Frigates - it all depends not on their Tonnage but on their duty assignments and mission objectives .. the US Ticonderogas and Arleigh-Burkes have nearly identical tonnages - they can carry and launch roughly the same number of missiles - anti-ship, anti-air and anti-sub capability are roughly the same - they have roughly the same size crew - they both carry helicopters - One is a Cruiser and One is a Destroyer - all because they have different missions .. but, in an emergency, a Tico could do the job of an Arleigh-Burke and, in an emergency, an Arleigh-Burke could do the job of a Tico, though the Flag Officer is going to have to think on his or her feet and make compromises to their living quarters ..
What's in a name? There is an overlap between destroyer and frigate and the terms are interchangeable. In the RN destroyer usually means an AAW ship which also has a general purpose capability. A frigate is an ASW ship again with a general purpose capability or a general purpose escort. Most modern destroyers/frigates have a multi-role dimension even though they may be specialised for a certain task. Other navies may use the terms differently. Also a destroyer is not necessarily larger and more heavily armed than a frigate. For example the RN T22 frigate was larger, more heavily armed and much more expensive than the T42 destroyer. If you look at the under construction T26 frigate it is about the same size and cost as the T45 destroyer but specialised for ASW rather than AAW. Maybe we should just refer to both ship types as escorts?
So far what I heard. Frigates: Specialist unit, has mission focused weapons. Usually less weapons. Destroyers: All purpose, Anti submarine. Cruiser: a missile platform. Offensive focused.
@swunt10
2 жыл бұрын
all these "definitions" are not correct and not traditional naval terms. only the name frigate is a traditional naval term and always meant a small to mid sized war ship, some frigates (usually the larger ones) where sometimes send out on long endurance missions to cruise far away from home port and that's where the term cruiser came from. basically a large frigate capable of independent and long endurance missions. destroyer on the other hand is a modern misnomer and actually should mean 'torpedo-boat-destroyer' which is where that name comes from.these where short lived ww1 era boat or very small ships designed to fight off (destroy) torpedo-boats. thanks to americans not knowing what words mean we now have this confusion and some people even think a destroyer should be "larger" than a frigate for basically no reason other than US ships using confusing names and the rest of the world not sure what to do now.
Funny how now days, frigates and destroyers are so close. The new Canadian Frigates will be 7 800 tons empty and around 9 400 tons full load. But its still called a frigate, some of the bigger ones are called like that because it sounds less agressive and thus it is easier to pass to the public.
@jaredevans8263
3 жыл бұрын
Maybe the new frigates have less firepower than the "standard" destroyer? How do they compare to say an Arleigh Burke destroyer?
@NBeaver-bx4yl
3 жыл бұрын
@@jaredevans8263 it is indeed the case. Its more of a well rounded platform, with tomahawks, ESSM, NSM, torpedors etc... a big part of the weight is also the mission bay, which allows the deployment of special forces, drones, humanitarian aid etc... I think in total it has like 70 missiles. Which is indeed considerably less than the burke. Mainly have less surface to air. So yeah, less firepower, but it also has place and the power to install laser weapons soon.
Watched the video and am still confused. You made it clear as mud.
In short - no-one knows the frickin' difference. In the UK navy, Frigates 'tend' to be ASW, and Destroyers AAW. But they are both multi-role to some extent, and that distinction doesn't work with all navies.
This video can be compressed in 1 minute. Frigates are smaller and lightly armed escort ship while Destroyers are multi-role fleet escort that is heavily armed. There.
Well that was 8 minutes I'll never get back.
In wwII Frigates were known as sub chasers and were smaller than Destroyers with less guns.
In modern terms, the key distinction is not the size (or displacement) but rather the mission definition for the vessel. Two ships can have different missions, and yet, be of the same displacement. If is this point which makes the distinction so confusing. Both ships are designed for fleet protection, but, the principal difference is this: Frigates are designed primarily for anti-submarine warfare - with strong ASW capability. They are usually (but not always) of smaller size and posses a low acoustic signature. What air defenses a frigate has are largely oriented toward self-defense.. Alternatively Destroyers are designed principally for Aerial warfare, and fleet defense. This typically requires higher top speeds (giving higher acoustic signature) and are generally larger to accommodate more weapons. Destroyers are true multi-role vessels as they possess weapons for all scenarios. However, the key point-of-difference is something which no-one bothers to consider. ACOUSTIC SIGNATURE - with the key trade-off being between speed vs. sound. Frigates are designed to be quiet under the water - and it is this which makes them potent weapons for ASW. Frigates are quieter. Destroyers are faster.
In the age of sail (Wooden ships and Iron Men) Frigates were too small to take place in the line of battle (5th rate) but large enough for long voyages and able to stay at sea for long periods of time and operate independently. Destroyers were originally Torpedo Boat Destroyers (as stated here), fast enough and well armed enough to destroy smaller faster torpedo armed ships yet small enough not to be tempting or preferred targets. If you think about it, large Destroyers became small light Cruisers and blurred the line of their intended mission (tempting targets in their own right). Maybe Destroyers as a class became quickly obsolete when powerful and numerous secondary and tertiary batteries were deployed on capital ships and cruisers.,
A frigate is smol and used for escort, a destroyer is bigger and used for fucking up someone else’s fleet.
I recall an old symbolism of Marines, comparable to a breed of guard Dogs There are skinny fast Marines, like Doberman Pinschers and big muscled heavy Marines, like Rottweilers. They wear the same colors of coat are both mean when provoked, loyal to their masters and they go for the throat in the attacks. The same can be said about Frigates and Destroyers.
Knew a couple officers , who's first duty station was on Knox class frigates, On the west coast Now decommissioned.
tldr: A frigate is a discount destroyer.
Thanks. Long awaited topic.
@Military-TV
3 жыл бұрын
Hope you enjoyed it!
Why does it seem like: CG (nice one at the 0:23 - to your credit it was on the Spruance... destroyer hull), DDG, FFG.. the term to use for the USN all boils down to what Congress can be talked into buying. Smaller navies tend to apply terms that... are a bit optimistic perhaps for the actual hull size. Some of these "Frigates" are missile boats or Corvettes at most. Doesn't really matter if they meet other criteria or not, unless they will never face a much larger navy (probably a good idea).
in the RN the destroyer is faster and designed mainly to provide AA defence, While the Frigate is a slower but more long-ranged vehicle designed to defend against submarines although due to the lack of general-purpose vessels the Type 23 have been shoehorned into that role despite not really being designed for it