Warship Classification/Designation Discussion

Y

Yellow Palace

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
5 May 2007
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
1,711
Scott Kenny said:
SSGN-719, it looks like, likely replacing the second flight of 688s (intended IOC in 1979). Or at least bumping the 688 VLS down the line. For whatever reason, all submarines are in a single series of numbers, regardless of type. SS, SSK, AGSS, SSN, SSG, SSGN, SSBN... The only exception is the Seawolf class that got slapped with SSN-21, -22, and -23.
Click to expand...
My working hypothesis is that the first two letters define the numbering series, and subsequent ones modify the first two.

This is broken by DDGs and FFGs not falling into the DD and FF sequences, but otherwise it holds up reasonably well. Within submarines, there were the short-lived SC, SF and SM classifications with their own sequences.
 
Yellow Palace said:
My working hypothesis is that the first two letters define the numbering series, and subsequent ones modify the first two.

This is broken by DDGs and FFGs not falling into the DD and FF sequences, but otherwise it holds up reasonably well. Within submarines, there were the short-lived SC, SF and SM classifications with their own sequences.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work for many other types as well:

LPH, LPD are numbered separately
PC, PCG, and PCH had their own sequences
Various AG* designations (AGOR, AGOS, etc.) all have their own numbering

Sub numbering is not quite unique, but close to it.
 
TomS said:
Doesn't work for many other types as well:

LPH, LPD are numbered separately
PC, PCG, and PCH had their own sequences
Various AG* designations (AGOR, AGOS, etc.) all have their own numbering

Sub numbering is not quite unique, but close to it.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, cruisers break that in the opposite direction - CA and CL being the same sequence. But CB, CC, CG and CV have their own.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Come to think of it, cruisers break that in the opposite direction - CA and CL being the same sequence. But CB, CC, CG and CV have their own.
Click to expand...
Mainly cause CA original stood for Cruiser Armor, for the Armor Cruisers, and the USN plans in the 1920s was for all cruisers to have 8 inchers and leaving the Omahas as the only 6 inchers.

Reason for that was after some calculations it was figured that a ship design to fight at the distances the USN needed to fight had the tonnage that made 8 inchers make more sense.

The Navy treaties, particularly the London ones, forced the 6 inch cruiser down the navy throat and fucker the entire system. And it was easier to redo the paperwork then remake everything to split the lines.


The CVs already had their own system being the Carriers, as did the Battlecruisers (CC) which was one of the first designations. With them both being extremely different then the maiine cruisers with them being capital ships that a different designation made a lot of sense, still does. While the CBs being expected for a completely different role of being a heavy counter raider and an outright different design.
A similar deal that the guided missiles ships shared, was too different in both roles, design and duties to be consider the same deal.


Which is the major difference over tge subs.

The cruiser line is like a vine, no true single beginning or end. Compare to the subs where you can easily Trace the newest Virginia class all the way back to then fucking USS Holland, with the different designs branch off the main line.
 
TomS said:
Doesn't work for many other types as well:

LPH, LPD are numbered separately
PC, PCG, and PCH had their own sequences
Various AG* designations (AGOR, AGOS, etc.) all have their own numbering

Sub numbering is not quite unique, but close to it.
Click to expand...
AG is for Experimental Auxiliaries. AGSS-555, USS Dolphin as an example. SS hull number, but completely unarmed.
 
For submarines there was a short-lived SSK designation for the Barracuda-class - they were originally named K-1, K-2, K-3 but had SSK-1, SSK-2 etc. pennants but then they received names in 1959.
SSK-1 became SST-3 in 1959 as a training sub then SS-T3 in 1972 but never took up SS-550 which was reserved for her in 1959
SSK-2 was reassigned to SS-551 in 1959
SSK-3 was decommissioned in 1958 but was still retrospectively was re-assigned as SS-552 in 1959!
These SS-55x series pennants were in a gap left by unordered and cancelled submarines left over from mid-WW2 era planning (SS-550 to 562). The Tang-class of 1947 contracts picked up at SS-563 (it is notable that no cancelled block is ever re-used, 550 to 556 had never been specifically assigned to a contracted order so were a genuine gap used for backfill and Norwegian MAP contracts and AGSS-555 Dolphin which wasn't ordered until 1960 so was way out of sequence and should bu rights have slotted in somewhere around the 620s).

SST-1 and SST-2 were the training subs of the T-1 class, in 1956 they got names (Mackerel and Marlin). It seems that in 1966 SST-1 became AGSS-570 when it took up a research role, but Marlin remained SST-2 until her decommissioning in the 1970s.

It is perhaps more of surprise that Nautilus given her historic and scientific status was not given a pennant out of the SS series but instead merely became SSN-571, but I suppose given that Albacore (569) and all the other 57x subs up to the first Skate (578) were all either one-offs or SSG prototypes it does seem that some effort was made to keep allocating all submarines regardless of role within the same series just with a role prefix.

I'm not sure why the Seawolf-class was singled out for special treatment in the SSN-21+ series, presumably partly a marketing ploy (premonition of 21st century and all that guff). Rightfully given the contract dates (1989) they should probably have been SSN-774 onwards. The USN must have made a conscious decision in 1998 to place the Virginia orders back into the proper order despite the nearly decade-long gap between orders (Jimmy Carter was ordered in 1996 but of course her pennant was already reserved).
 
Scott Kenny said:
AG is for Experimental Auxiliaries. AGSS-555, USS Dolphin as an example. SS hull number, but completely unarmed.
Click to expand...

AG is for "Miscellaneous Auxillary" -- most of the surface ship designations that start with AG are not experimental at all (AGD for dredging ship, for example). It's just that there was a period when sticking AG on front of a combatant designation marked a test platform (there were AGDE and AGFF, for example.)

Hood said:
I'm not sure why the Seawolf-class was singled out for special treatment in the SSN-21+ series
Click to expand...

Because the program name was Attack Submarine for the 21st Century (SSN-21) and someone in the CNO's office decided Congress would be confused if the first SSN-21 was SSN-774.
 
TomS said:
Because the program name was Attack Submarine for the 21st Century (SSN-21) and someone in the CNO's office decided Congress would be confused if the first SSN-21 was SSN-774.
Click to expand...
Congress would definitely be confused. It's also why the other ship programs don't use that name formula: Ohio Replacement Submarine, SSN(X), whatever they're calling the new Frigate program...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Congress would definitely be confused. It's also why the other ship programs don't use that name formula: Ohio Replacement Submarine, SSN(X), whatever they're calling the new Frigate program...
Click to expand...

The Air Force managed to throw themselves into the same mess, without even being prompted. I can't for my life figure how they went from B-2 to Long-Range Strike-Bomber to B-21. B-3 was right there...
 
TomS said:
The Air Force managed to throw themselves into the same mess, without even being prompted. I can't for my life figure how they went from B-2 to Long-Range Strike-Bomber to B-21. B-3 was right there...
Click to expand...
Not to forget F-35 when the next number was in the 20s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not to forget F-35 when the next number was in the 20s.
Click to expand...

I heard that one happen live - some general got confused when a reporter asked what the new plane's designation was and instead of saying "we'll get back to you" he made something up that was totally wrong. So wrong that I'm fairly certain LM actually had F-24 on their website for a day or so until they confirmed F-35 was going to stick. Wish I had thought to grab a screen capture.

Frankly, that was shoddy staff work there. They absolutely should have known the question would be asked and briefed SecAF with the right answer.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
I heard that one happen life - some general got confused when a reported asked what the new plane's designation was and instead of saying "we'll get back to you" he made something up that was totally wrong. So wrong that I'm fairly certain LM actually had F-24 on their website for a day or so until they confirmed F-35 was going to stick. Wish I had thought to grab a screen capture.

Frankly, that was shoddy staff work there. They absolutely should have known the question would be asked and briefed SecAF with the right answer.
Click to expand...
Or SecAF had a brain fart and forgot after the brief.
 
Designations are all over the place these days, all the original list compilers are long retired and who can be bothered to dig out old paperwork so they just do what they want which is why you end up with oddities like AIM-260 and LGM-35. It's like a lottery these days, NGAD is probably more likely to be something like F-47 as a nod to the old days of escort fighters than F-36 or F-24 or any other possible combination.

TomS said:
Because the program name was Attack Submarine for the 21st Century (SSN-21) and someone in the CNO's office decided Congress would be confused if the first SSN-21 was SSN-774.
Click to expand...
By that logic shouldn't Zumwalt have been DDG-21 and not DDG-1000?
Even DDG-1000 is wrong because the original DD-xxx series ended at Hayler DD-997 and the DDG-xxx series is only at 127.
God knows where DD(X) will pick up from, DDG-1003? DDG-128?

Like I say, its a lottery.
 
Hood said:
Designations are all over the place these days, all the original list compilers are long retired and who can be bothered to dig out old paperwork so they just do what they want which is why you end up with oddities like AIM-260 and LGM-35. It's like a lottery these days, NGAD is probably more likely to be something like F-47 as a nod to the old days of escort fighters than F-36 or F-24 or any other possible combination.
Click to expand...
Along that line of thought, I'd expect F-38 as the first of the long range escorts. Though for maximum irony, F-38 Mustang II. :D

Hood said:
By that logic shouldn't Zumwalt have been DDG-21 and not DDG-1000?
Even DDG-1000 is wrong because the original DD-xxx series ended at Hayler DD-997 and the DDG-xxx series is only at 127.
God knows where DD(X) will pick up from, DDG-1003? DDG-128?
Click to expand...
Zumwalts picked up from the last of the Spruance-class "gun destroyers" as their main weapon was intended to be the AGS. Could have gone with DD-998 unless 998 and 999 had been assigned and then canceled, though I don't have any evidence of there being another two Spru-cans or Kidds planned and not ordered.

But the subs have skipped a few numbers here and there as well.
 
Zumwalts were originally DD-21, before the program was cancelled and resurrected in the early 2000s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Along that line of thought, I'd expect F-38 as the first of the long range escorts. Though for maximum irony, F-38 Mustang II. :D


Zumwalts picked up from the last of the Spruance-class "gun destroyers" as their main weapon was intended to be the AGS. Could have gone with DD-998 unless 998 and 999 had been assigned and then canceled, though I don't have any evidence of there being another two Spru-cans or Kidds planned and not ordered.

But the subs have skipped a few numbers here and there as well.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge 6x Kouroush (Kidd) Class destroyers were ordered by the Iranian Shah but two ships Ardeshir and Shapour were cancelled in 1976 June.
 
Tzoli said:
To my knowledge 6x Kouroush (Kidd) Class destroyers were ordered by the Iranian Shah but two ships Ardeshir and Shapour were cancelled in 1976 June.
Click to expand...
Which could have had US DD pennant numbers and conveniently enough would have left the next number for a new class as DD(G)-1000.

Thanks!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which could have had US DD pennant numbers and conveniently enough would have left the next number for a new class as DD(G)-1000.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The Kouroush/Kidd class account for DD-993 through DD-996. (Changed to DDG when bought for the USN but there were logistical reasons not to change the numbers that far into construction.)

Hayler is DD-997. There was authorization (but not funding) for a second DDH like Hayler that probably accounts for DD-998.

As we discussed here not too long ago, Litton's initial AEGIS DDG design was designated DD-999. But that may have been internal only; there's no sign that the Navy used that number. I'm 99% sure no one remembered this in the 2000s, and the Zs got 1000-series numbers for the "coolness factor" rather than any actual systemic reason.
 
Hood said:
God knows where DD(X) will pick up from, DDG-1003? DDG-128?
Click to expand...

If there is any justice in the world, DD(X) hull #1 will become CG-74. (Not a chance, I know).
 
How about CD-#? Cruiser Destroyer. (Or should that be DC-#?) Any more the U.S. Destroyers have so much firepower they are light cruisers. The 'G' in the DDG designation is superflous. And arent most DDG ran by an O-5/Ccommander rank? CD would be a nod to that. Future cruisers could resurrect CA-#, a nod to Captain rank. Or should the ships be, respectively, DC-# and AC-#?
 
Tidying up this slightly off-topic thread on its own.
I'm a sucker for designation discussions but this probably best as a stand alone topic for discussion rather than derailing the APHNAS thread.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Along that line of thought, I'd expect F-38 as the first of the long range escorts. Though for maximum irony, F-38 Mustang II.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea with F-38, pity Boeing doesn't have any historic fighter names to fall back on. Peashooter II might not cut it...
Lockmart of course could revitalize some golden oldies.
 
Hood said:
Not a bad idea with F-38, pity Boeing doesn't have any historic fighter names to fall back on. Peashooter II might not cut it...
Lockmart of course could revitalize some golden oldies.
Click to expand...

They can recycle old McDonnell Aircraft names -- Ultra-Hornet, anyone? Or Spectre?
 
A table on p23 of Electronic Greyhounds, covering Cold War Battle Force Ships and Escorts states that the designations DD-998-1003 were intended to be used by "Spruance class for convoy command".

Can anybody tell me anything more about these ships, and whether those hull numbers were genuinely assigned, or internally used by Litton for a private-venture proposal?
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
A table on p23 of Electronic Greyhounds, covering Cold War Battle Force Ships and Escorts states that the designations DD-998-1003 were intended to be used by "Spruance class for convoy command".

Can anybody tell me anything more about these ships, and whether those hull numbers were genuinely assigned, or internally used by Litton for a private-venture proposal?
Click to expand...
Never heard of them. I'd guess it's internal, the same way DD 999 was their internal designation for the AEGIS DDG.
 
Gonna wager the original Hayeler design was the "convoy command" Spruance. Larger aviation facilities give me the impression it could be used as a flagship, similar to the way you'd expect the SCS to be, although I have nothing to back it up.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
A table on p23 of Electronic Greyhounds, covering Cold War Battle Force Ships and Escorts states that the designations DD-998-1003 were intended to be used by "Spruance class for convoy command".

Can anybody tell me anything more about these ships, and whether those hull numbers were genuinely assigned, or internally used by Litton for a private-venture proposal?
Click to expand...
Must have replied to this in another thread.

Once a hull number is assigned, even if production is cancelled, no other ship gets that number. See a huge chunk of submarines and destroyers post-WW2, or rather the huge skips in hull numbers.

So I doubt that more than 2 of those were assigned hull numbers, else Zumwalts would have started at 1004.
 
TomS said:
They can recycle old McDonnell Aircraft names -- Ultra-Hornet, anyone? Or Spectre?
Click to expand...
Phantom III? That's got to be a shoe-in for F/A-X surely?
Eagle II would be too obvious. Mustang II sounds more powerful.

VoodooTwo?
(HoodooVoodooTwohoo or WoohooHoodooVoodooTwohoo - beat that Boaty McBoatFace you little trout sniffer)
 
that_person said:
Gonna wager the original Hayeler design was the "convoy command" Spruance. Larger aviation facilities give me the impression it could be used as a flagship, similar to the way you'd expect the SCS to be, although I have nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...
I doubt that, as the DDH-997 in that same table is in another column and mentioned separately. Whatever it was, it was not the DDH Hayler design.
 
Hood said:
Phantom III? That's got to be a shoe-in for F/A-X surely?
Eagle II would be too obvious. Mustang II sounds more powerful.

VoodooTwo?
(HoodooVoodooTwohoo or WoohooHoodooVoodooTwohoo - beat that Boaty McBoatFace you little trout sniffer)
Click to expand...
Isn't the F-15EX officially called the Eagle II?
 
History and progress in this area have developed in such a way that modern so-called "destroyers" have long since fallen out of their original formulation. Modern large rocket ships that are traditionally called "destroyers" have not been any destroyers for a long time. They ceased to be destroyers by the 2nd World War. Occupying a niche of the class of ships that were previously called "2-rank cruisers". The Japanese went even further. "Helicopter destroyers" are generally tin. What they were smoking there is unclear.
 
A number of ship types have served roles only loosely denoted by their supposed type, and they have evolved over time.

en.wikipedia.org

Frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The name frigate in the 17th to early 18th centuries was given to any full-rigged ship built for speed and manoeuverability, intended to be used in scouting, escort and patrol roles. The term was applied loosely to ships varying greatly in design.

While some navies have regarded frigates as principally large ocean-going anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants, others have used the term to describe ships that are otherwise recognisable as corvettes, destroyers, and even nuclear-powered guided-missile cruisers.

'Destroyer' now seems as arbitrary a term as 'Frigate' has become. The Type 26 frigate is also called a 'Global Combat Ship,' implying a role other than fleet support in its primary role as anti-submarine ship and practically akin to a cruiser. In tonnage, it's not far below a Type 45 destroyer. The role of the Type 45 is primarily air defence but that role is evolving and the Type 83 looks likely to have a role encompassing ballistic missile defence and total airspace dominance, which would make it more of a capital ship. That guess is subject to what actually emerges of course.

These names can best be understood as a kind of camouflage that enables the ships to sail through committee rooms in Whitehall without being sunk before they're launched.
 
Last edited:
Current discussions over what a frigate is versus a destroyer remind me of the head-scratching I had to do sorting out Iain M Banks' distinctions between GSVs, LSVs, LCUs etc.
 
GregoryUSSR said:
History and progress in this area have developed in such a way that modern so-called "destroyers" have long since fallen out of their original formulation. Modern large rocket ships that are traditionally called "destroyers" have not been any destroyers for a long time. They ceased to be destroyers by the 2nd World War. Occupying a niche of the class of ships that were previously called "2-rank cruisers". The Japanese went even further. "Helicopter destroyers" are generally tin. What they were smoking there is unclear.
Click to expand...
In the specific case of the Japanese, they have constitutional limits on what they can have in their fleet. Destroyers are escort ships, defensive in nature. Aircraft carriers are offensive in nature, and therefore not allowed under Article 9.

Same reason the Russians called their carriers Aviation Cruisers, basically. Treaty compliance.

A "helicopter destroyer" is one that can quickly flex from primarily ASW support to carrying gunships to support an amphibious landing retaking an island to carrying lots of SAR helicopters in the event of another 3/11 tsunami.


=====
Frigates in the age of sail were the largest ships outside the line of battle. When steam took over ship propulsion, that role got called cruisers, because the definition of a frigate as a fully rigged ship was no longer in play.

Destroyers started out very small, but went from ~350tons to 1850 tons in about 20 years (1895-1915). Once TBDs were big enough to also carry fairly large numbers of torpedoes themselves, they got the role of carrying torpedoes to attack battleships as well as protecting battleships from other torpedo boats. The idea of destroyers as dedicated ASW ships dates to WW1, and is really a recognition that a submarine is nothing more than a sneaky torpedo boat.

Destroyers have gotten a lot bigger due to the extra systems that stack up into a minimally-capable warship these days. Even the Constellation-class frigates have SPY6 radars and Aegis.
 
Scott Kenny said:
In the specific case of the Japanese, they have constitutional limits on what they can have in their fleet. Destroyers are escort ships, defensive in nature. Aircraft carriers are offensive in nature, and therefore not allowed under Article 9.
Click to expand...

This really isn't true. The Japanese constitution does not name any specific types of ships or anything like that level of detail. It just says,
"Article 9.,In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."

Which was clearly being interpreted rather loosely even before the recent Japanese government. Since about 2015, there have been efforts to revise Article 9 to clearly legitimize the existence of the JMSDF in general but no one is talking about any specific prohibited or allowed ship types.
 
TomS said:
This really isn't true. The Japanese constitution does not name any specific types of ships or anything like that level of detail. It just says,
"Article 9.,In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."

Which was clearly being interpreted rather loosely even before the recent Japanese government. Since about 2015, there have been efforts to revise Article 9 to clearly legitimize the existence of the JMSDF in general but no one is talking about any specific prohibited or allowed ship types.
Click to expand...
It's how the Japanese have seen it. A destroyer is an escort ship, escort ships are defensive in nature. Even the mission of their Landing Ships is phrased in terms of "recovering a captured island" not "taking an island"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom