About Frigates, Destroyers and cruisers

[Karl Heidenreich]

I been reading about modern fleets and I got confused by two antagonic definitions of warships.
The common definition for a frigate is that she is warship bigger than a destroyer but smaller than a cruiser. So, a frigate is in a point between destroyer and cruiser.
But the USN called frigates those vessels that descend from the old Destroyer Escort (DE). In this case the frigates are smaller vessels in comparison to a destroyer.
The French, on the other hand, who doesn´t use the term "destroyer" refer to their ships as "Frigate First Rank" or "Second Rank". In this case the big "First Rank" Frigate IS, actually, a destroyer and the small one is the real frigate.
Now, the frigates are the ones called to do the antisubmarine warfare and have the AntiSub Array and Antiaircraft Batteries. So, the Frigates are doing the destroyer traditional job. In this case, what the destroyer do now?
If cruisers are still cruisers then, which one is the ranking vessel: frigate or destroyer?
Best regards.

[Coyote850]

I always considered the frigate to be smaller than a destroyer. Lighter weight, less armor,fewer/smaller guns.

[Bgile]

Pretty much everyone now considers a Frigate to be a ship smaller than a destroyer. They are usually slower as well, and during WWII were optimized for ASW work. They are similar in capability to British Corvettes and US Destroyer Escorts. Basically a cheap ship that can be employed where a destroyer isn't required.

There were a number of years where the US Navy confused the issue by referring to ships larger than destroyers and smaller than cruisers “frigates”. It no longer does that.

Current US practice blurs the line between destroyers and cruisers, and the Arleigh Burke class destroyer is as large as some WWII light cruisers. Currently ships classed as cruisers are ships with a primary funtion of battlegroup area defense, and carry more AA missiles than the Burke class destroyers. They also have helicopter hangers and are somewhat larger. They are MUCH higher in profile – something obvious if you see them tied up alongside a destroyer. They used a lot more aluminum in their construction and I suspect couldn’t take nearly as much punishment as a Burke class destroyer.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I read that the US Navy used the same hull for the Spruance Class destroyers in frigates. Is this true? Because if the two vessels use the same hull then the difference is not their size but the sistems they have.

[Bgile]

I read that the US Navy used the same hull for the Spruance Class destroyers in frigates. Is this true? Because if the two vessels use the same hull then the difference is not their size but the sistems they have.

The Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers have the same hull and powerplant as the Spruance class destroyers. The latter are being decommissioned as the Arleigh Burke class destroyers are added. The latter are much better ships, with all steel construction.

[RF]

My understanding is that frigates were smaller than destroyers, and had more specialist tasks, whereas destroyers had a more ''jack of all trades'' role.
On both sides frigates were used specifically for convoy escort and anti-submarine work, and had a less powerful gun armament than destroyers.

The other main difference I believe is that WW2 frigates did not have a torpedo armament, unlike most destroyers.

[RNfanDan]

Interestingly enough, the earlier frigates (in Collingwood & Nelson days) were roughly equivalent in their role, to 20th-century cruisers. They were lighter, slimmer, faster, and more maneuverable than ships-of-the-line such as Victory. Like cruisers, their role was as fast, powerful scouts for the "big boys", as well as tending other cruiser-like functions. Fine examples of each of the two types, are the frigate USS Constitution and HMS Victory.

[Bgile]

Here in the US we are proud of USS Constitution, but she wasn't really representative of frigates in her day. She was specifically designed to be more powerful than other frigates, knowing full well the British Navy couldn't suddenly increase the firepower of all their frigates. She was smaller and handier than a ship of the line - acutually I suppose in some ways she was a "Pocket Battleship". :)

I believe USS Kearsarge was referred to as a "cruiser", not a frigate.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

Here in the US we are proud of USS Constitution, but she wasn't really representative of frigates in her day. She was specifically designed to be more powerful than other frigates, knowing full well the British Navy couldn't suddenly increase the firepower of all their frigates. She was smaller and handier than a ship of the line - acutually I suppose in some ways she was a "Pocket Battleship". :)

Excellent analogy. When I was reading your post, but before the last part the words "pocket battleship" came to my mind.

Now that we are talking about this. Can we stablish the analogy between ships in the sail era, the dreadnought era and nowadays? For example:
Ship of the Line: sail era
Battleship: dreadnought era
Whatever: nowaday

Best regards.

P.S. Constitution is a very beautiful ship.

[marcelo_malara]

Whatever: nowaday

Aircraft carrier

[Karl Heidenreich]

I knew it was gonna be you the one who answer that. And destroyers, frigates, corbettes, cruisers and the such?

[marcelo_malara]

Well, you know:

Ship-of-the-line -> Battleship -> <no direct descendant>
Frigate -> Cruiser -> <cruiser? destroyer?>
<no extant> -> Destroyer -> <destroyer? frigate?>

[Bgile]

It's really hard to do these days. The ships the US calls destroyers today are so much larger than the WWII ones it gets very hard to equate anything.