Warship Classification/Designation Discussion

[GregoryUSSR]

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.

I agree with you in many ways. On my own behalf, I want to add. The American general designation of the "destroyer" class of ships can still be used further. The Russian specialized designation "destroyer" from the words "destroyer squadron" does not imply this at all. Initially, the destroyer is a weapon of David against Goliath. When a small ship armed with torpedoes could send a huge armored battleship to one. It could, due to its small size, speed and maneuverability. At least somewhere in the parking lots, bases or at night, a destroyer of that period could really "get" enemy battleships. This period lasted in the 19th century and at the very beginning of the 20th century. That is, by its very meaning, the main weapon of a destroyer is torpedoes. But then everything changed. By World War 1, the main weapon of destroyers was artillery and they actually fell out of their wording. Then things got worse. For example, our Tashkent-class destroyer of the 2nd World War here:

Tell me, how many chances does a 140-meter-long ship with a visual area the size of a World War 1 cruiser have to get close to an enemy battleship at a distance of an effective torpedo salvo and not be destroyed at the same time? These chances tend to zero. For this reason, the Eminets of World War 2 were used in any way, in any qualities, but not as destroyers. Not in the way that the doctrine of the use of these weapons originally envisaged. In fact, the destroyers served as the lightest cruisers. And in fact, the main battle ship of the fleet. And as for the frigates..... All this sailing classification was in an era when the only naval weapon was artillery and all warships actually differed only in size and number of guns. But they had in general the same design. Then, with the advent of a large number of types and types of naval weapons, specialization began, as specialized ships were required. Now the sailing classification is returning because modern warships have become universal in fact, as well as sailboats differ only in size. If we discard the landing and aircraft carriers. By the way, we did not have any agreements on aircraft carriers and we did not conclude such agreements with anyone. This is a matter of ideology. The aircraft carrier was considered a weapon of imperialism and therefore it was inconvenient to call their own aircraft carriers that way.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In fact, the destroyers served as the lightest cruisers. And in fact, the main battle ship of the fleet. And as for the frigates..... All this sailing classification was in an era when the only naval weapon was artillery and all warships actually differed only in size and number of guns. But they had in general the same design. Then, with the advent of a large number of types and types of naval weapons, specialization began, as specialized ships were required. Now the sailing classification is returning because modern warships have become universal in fact, as well as sailboats differ only in size. If we discard the landing and aircraft carriers.

An interesting point I hadn't thought about.

By the way, we did not have any agreements on aircraft carriers and we did not conclude such agreements with anyone. This is a matter of ideology. The aircraft carrier was considered a weapon of imperialism and therefore it was inconvenient to call their own aircraft carriers that way.

Montreux Convention, which is what allows foreign ships to sail through the Bosporus and Dardanelles from the Black Sea out into the Mediterranean. Which does not allow warships of greater than 15,000tons to pass, when that warship is not owned by a nation on the Black Sea.

 

[Arjen]

Initially, the destroyer is a weapon of David against Goliath. When a small ship armed with torpedoes could send a huge armored battleship to one. It could, due to its small size, speed and maneuverability. At least somewhere in the parking lots, bases or at night, a destroyer of that period could really "get" enemy battleships. This period lasted in the 19th century and at the very beginning of the 20th century. That is, by its very meaning, the main weapon of a destroyer is torpedoes.

I have to disagree. The first destroyers, of the end of the 19th century, were ships that were intended to take on torpedo boats - what these days would be called Fast Attack Craft (FAC). From day one, destroyers carried guns to take on FACs.

Because FACs are not suitable for high seas warfare, the world's navies sought a larger ship type to fire torpedoes at capital ships. Preferrably cheapish, fast and manoevrable, at which point the original torpedo boat destroyer came into view. In essence, the destroyer took over the high seas mission of the thing it was designed to counter.

The resulting ship type could be used against the smallest and largest naval combatants of the day. Escort duty was part of the original mission of destroyers - keep torpedo boats away from large warships.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

I have to disagree.

I will try to explain how I understand this. These discrepancies are related to the distortion of the translation. There is a literal translation. And there is a literary translation. So, for some reason, the classification of warships has a literary (semantic) translation, and not a literal one. Because of this, we don't understand each other. Official (literary) translation: Эсминец - destroyer. We literal translate a destroyer as a Разрушитель. I understand what kind of ships you were talking about. We used to call such ships a Истребитель - fighter (by analogy with an airplane). That is, a large destroyer designed to combat conventional destroyers. And our term Эсминец itself is not a destroyer in your. In our, a ЭсМиНец is a combination of three words: Эскадренный Минный Носитель (squadron mine carrier). A МиноНосец is simple: a Минный Носитель (mine carrier). A torpedo boat is, in our opinion, a Торпедная Лодка - we have never had such ships. If we literally translate our terms into your terms, it turns out:
- Торпедный Катер - torpedo speedboat
- МиноНосец - mine carrier
- ЭсМиНец (Эскадренный МиноНосец) - squadron mine carrier
The same goes for battleships. Your battleship is just a Боевой Корабль (battle ship) in our term. And our term ЛинКор is a word consisting of two words: a Линейный Корабль. According to you, it translates as a linear ship. These are the distortions that go on. Hence the misunderstanding. And a torpedo boat in our view is something like this:

A boat is a boat. I hope I could explain something.

 

[1635yankee]

Naval ship nomenclature depends on language, tradition, and domestic and international politics. Historically, "frigate" was the second largest category of warships[1] and sloops or corvettes were, interchangeably, the third.

The USN had one class of battle cruisers, which got scrapped or converted into aircraft carriers. The Alaskas were "large cruisers" (which was actually exactly the same term the WW1-era German Navy used for its battle cruisers) but were, by design and characteristics, designed for exactly the same roles as the first ships called "battle cruisers" (it would also be difficult to argue that the Alaskas were inferior warships, overall, to the Scharnhorst and Gneisenaus, which were rated as "battleships" [2]). Is it reasonable to term the Alaskas battle cruisers? I'd argue "yes." YMMV. The USN rated anti-submarine warships as "destroyer escorts" into the 1970s, while rating over-sized destroyers as "frigates," then, rather arbitrarily, split those ships previously classified as "frigates" into "cruisers" and "destroyers." Earlier, the USN and RN operated exactly the same ships but one rated them as "destroyer escorts" and "frigates."

A consistent nomenclature system would be nice, but the distinctions between "destroyer" and "frigate" or "frigate" and "corvette" or "corvette" and "FAC" have become increasingly less operational and technological than political.

---------

[1] I am quite aware that there were multiple sub-categories of ships of the line or line-of-battle ships.

[2] Did either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau have any immune zone to the Alaskas' main battery guns? I know that the Alaskas never faced comparable ships in combat and the USN pretty much had no surface combat in the Atlantic. Of course, sensible admirals try to plan their actions so that their forces are always in a superior position. If the USN was heavily involved in surface combat in the Atlantic, the Scharnhorst wouldn't face an Alaska; it would face an Iowa, after it had faced numerous torpedo and dive bombers.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

[2] Did either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau have any immune zone to the Alaskas' main battery guns? I know that the Alaskas never faced comparable ships in combat and the USN pretty much had no surface combat in the Atlantic. Of course, sensible admirals try to plan their actions so that their forces are always in a superior position. If the USN was heavily involved in surface combat in the Atlantic, the Scharnhorst wouldn't face an Alaska; it would face an Iowa, after it had faced numerous torpedo and dive bombers.

Let's discuss this. There is a specific logical scheme for classifying warships. But not all ships fit neatly into this scheme. What is a battlecruiser? This is a large warship designed for linear combat in conjunction with battleships, but unlike them it has a higher speed, due to weakening of the reservation and often reducing the number of main caliber guns. It is important to note that it is the numbers, not the caliber. The battlecruiser differs from earlier armored cruisers in that the main caliber of its guns was the same as on battleships. Thus, the Alaska was not and could not be any battlecruiser. It was no faster than the American battleships of that period. And had much lighter artillery. 305mm versus 406mm on battleships. But the Alaska was also not a classic heavy cruiser with 203mm artillery, as it was too large. In fact, the "Alaska" or "big" cruiser. Or just a small Class 2 battleship. The Scharnhorst was also not a battlecruiser. His size, speed, and booking were typical for a battleship. It was the artillery of the main caliber that was sacrificed: 3x3-283mm against the originally intended 3x2-380mm. Scharnhorst is a forced product of the Treaty of Versailles. A battleship with weakened artillery. Which eventually became his death sentence in a battle with the British York. Alaska vs. Scharnhorst..... The question is certainly complicated. On the one hand, Alaska has an advantage in artillery. On the other hand, the level of protection of the Scharnhorst is such (recall how the Bismarck was drowned) that it is difficult to imagine how it would be drowned with 305mm shells weighing 519 kg.

 

[that_person]

Arguing about designations is just semantics, at the end of a day a Burke is still a Burke, and a Nimitz is still a Nimitz. Designations exist only to keep politicians happy, and the lack of a unified system, even within individual navies, proves that. Look at the 1975 Cruiser Gap solution for example, or how nobody can give a hard definition what "cruiser" means.

But, if you want to create a consistent naming system, I think the solution is to drop the names entirely. Ships should be designated based on mission, capability (I'll use the 1988 SCFRS language as a stand in), and flag facilities, as those are what ultimately matter. A Burke and Spruance are both destroyers, but have completely different mission sets and capabilities, therefore the term destroyer is useless.

If I had it my way, Burkes would be AAW, Battle Force Combatant, Escort, Knoxs would be ASW, Protection of Shipping, Escort, and Ticos would be AAW, Battle Force Combatant, Flagship. Obviously you can assign characters based on those titles to abbreviate it.

 

[paralay]

boat x, 500 tons
brig 2x, 1000 tons, 4 cruise missiles + 16 self-defense missiles
corvette 4x, 2000 tons, 8 cruise missiles + 16 anti-aircraft missiles = 24 cells
frigate 8x, 4000 tons, 12 cruise missiles + 36 anti-aircraft missiles = 48 cells
clipper 16x, 8000 tons, 24 cruise missiles + 72 anti-aircraft missiles = 96 cells
cruiser 25x, 12,500 tons, 40 cruise missiles + 112 anti-aircraft missiles = 152 cells
battleship 50x, 25,000 tons, 80 cruise missiles + 224 anti-aircraft missiles = 304 cells

Soon, all ships will come to a single appearance, outwardly similar to a Universal Landing Ship. Which will allow the use of unmanned and manned aircraft or helicopters from any type of ship

 

[GregoryUSSR]

boat x, 500 tons
brig 2x, 1000 tons, 4 cruise missiles + 16 self-defense missiles
corvette 4x, 2000 tons, 8 cruise missiles + 16 anti-aircraft missiles = 24 cells
frigate 8x, 4000 tons, 12 cruise missiles + 36 anti-aircraft missiles = 48 cells
clipper 16x, 8000 tons, 24 cruise missiles + 72 anti-aircraft missiles = 96 cells
cruiser 25x, 12,500 tons, 40 cruise missiles + 112 anti-aircraft missiles = 152 cells
battleship 50x, 25,000 tons, 80 cruise missiles + 224 anti-aircraft missiles = 304 cells

Soon, all ships will come to a single appearance, outwardly similar to a Universal Landing Ship. Which will allow the use of unmanned and manned aircraft or helicopters from any type of ship

That's right. Ships have become universal. The difference is only in size. Therefore, the classification has become like in the sailing fleet again.

 

[MadRat]

Powerplants and endurance are just as important as weapons and weight.

When modern weapons all have a serious impact to operations, there is no such thing as being able to maintain full operations after taking hits from anti-ship weapons. Even the largest ships are truly vulnerable. Modern cruisers were meant to go in and hold out largely on their own until a larger force assembles around them. And then to act as the flagship until a more capable ship arrives in relief. There are not many more capable ships these days. Destroyers are still screens for the greater fleet. Frigates are screens for logistical tonnage. While frigates and destroyers have similar capabilities, the destroyer needs fleet speed whereas frigates can move slower.

 

[Firefinder]

When modern weapons all have a serious impact to operations, there is no such thing as being able to maintain full operations after taking hits from anti-ship weapons. Even the largest ships are truly vulnerable. Modern cruisers were meant to go in and hold out largely on their own until a larger force assembles around them. And then to act as the flagship until a more capable ship arrives in relief. There are not many more capable ships these days. Destroyers are still screens for the greater fleet. Frigates are screens for logistical tonnage. While frigates and destroyers have similar capabilities, the destroyer needs fleet speed whereas frigates can move slower

And while thats true in theory...

Its not in actual operations.

One just need to look at the Bitch List and history of the Perrys to get tge reason why.

If you have a large navy with multiple heavy ships like tge CVNs and the LHA/Ds you often find the frigates escorting them.

And one of the largest complaints bout the Perrys was their speed since they couldn't keep up with the carriers.

Cause while they where ment to be a cheap convoy escort...

They did alot more then that. Especially after the mass retirement of the steam ships.

Which is why the new Constellation class which is to replace it is basically a mini Burke spec wise. And got up engine to keep up with the carriers. So they can honestly be argued to be destroyers.


At the end of the day the ship get classified by what the Politicians want them to be, and not what they do.

 

[CommanderRenHoek]

Arguing about designations is just semantics, at the end of a day a Burke is still a Burke, and a Nimitz is still a Nimitz. Designations exist only to keep politicians happy, and the lack of a unified system, even within individual navies, proves that. Look at the 1975 Cruiser Gap solution for example, or how nobody can give a hard definition what "cruiser" means.

But, if you want to create a consistent naming system, I think the solution is to drop the names entirely. Ships should be designated based on mission, capability (I'll use the 1988 SCFRS language as a stand in), and flag facilities, as those are what ultimately matter. A Burke and Spruance are both destroyers, but have completely different mission sets and capabilities, therefore the term destroyer is useless.

If I had it my way, Burkes would be AAW, Battle Force Combatant, Escort, Knoxs would be ASW, Protection of Shipping, Escort, and Ticos would be AAW, Battle Force Combatant, Flagship. Obviously you can assign characters based on those titles to abbreviate it.

There is a certain utilitarian logic to this, and the USSR went this route or something close to it. But they never had the same naval traditions as most other countries.

It is probably a more tedious way to go about things; just as example, "ASW Protection of Shipping, Escort" is a hideously long name, and while one could make slang versions of the name or something, e.g. "POS Escort" or "AS-POSE", YMMV if its a respectable name or something to joke about/demean the crew with.

Its also more vulnerable to being dated than the classic designations, not only because the missions change*, but the way modern warships now are increasingly becoming multi-role, with major systems getting either built in or getting placed into bolt on modules or literal containers.

Ultimately, like others here said, designations are as much about politics and evoking emotions - whether within your own force, the public, allies, adversaries, or the politicians holding the purses - as it is about utilitarian recordkeeping. People with money and power like Destroyers or Frigates, thats what you'll get, simply because those names have way more emotive power than [insert here bland descriptor of primary role].



* - I don't know how important Protection of Shipping as a mission still is for the US or other navies, the way most materiel is written its all either territorial/EEZ defense or power projection/land attack/strike now, with PoS just being something you're tasked with regardless of capability or design; witness for example LPDs being tasked for anti-piracy in the Horn of Africa.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Naval ship nomenclature depends on language, tradition, and domestic and international politics. Historically, "frigate" was the second largest category of warships[1] and sloops or corvettes were, interchangeably, the third.

The USN had one class of battle cruisers, which got scrapped or converted into aircraft carriers. The Alaskas were "large cruisers" (which was actually exactly the same term the WW1-era German Navy used for its battle cruisers) but were, by design and characteristics, designed for exactly the same roles as the first ships called "battle cruisers" (it would also be difficult to argue that the Alaskas were inferior warships, overall, to the Scharnhorst and Gneisenaus, which were rated as "battleships" [2]). Is it reasonable to term the Alaskas battle cruisers? I'd argue "yes." YMMV. The USN rated anti-submarine warships as "destroyer escorts" into the 1970s, while rating over-sized destroyers as "frigates," then, rather arbitrarily, split those ships previously classified as "frigates" into "cruisers" and "destroyers." Earlier, the USN and RN operated exactly the same ships but one rated them as "destroyer escorts" and "frigates."

A consistent nomenclature system would be nice, but the distinctions between "destroyer" and "frigate" or "frigate" and "corvette" or "corvette" and "FAC" have become increasingly less operational and technological than political.

---------

[1] I am quite aware that there were multiple sub-categories of ships of the line or line-of-battle ships.

[2] Did either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau have any immune zone to the Alaskas' main battery guns? I know that the Alaskas never faced comparable ships in combat and the USN pretty much had no surface combat in the Atlantic. Of course, sensible admirals try to plan their actions so that their forces are always in a superior position. If the USN was heavily involved in surface combat in the Atlantic, the Scharnhorst wouldn't face an Alaska; it would face an Iowa, after it had faced numerous torpedo and dive bombers.

The major issue with the Alaska class is that they didn't have protection from their own guns. They still only had 8" protection.

Alaska v Scharnhorst would be an ugly fight, probably mutual kills. Scharnhorst can't take hits from the 12" (14" equivalent) guns of the Alaska, and the Alaska can't take hits from the 28cm/11" guns of the Scharnhorst.

 

[uk 75]

The battlecruiser Hood was very popular with the British public for its world cruises and newsreel appearances. It was routinely called the largest battleship (note) in the world in such reports.
When it was sunk by the "real" battleship Bismark the blow to morale was high even though reporters tried to emphasise the relative ages of the two ships.

With the departure of Vanguard from RN service as its last battleship the remaining big gun cruisers (Belfast and the three Tiger class) assumed an importance which their poor armament did not warrant.
The County class guided weapons ships should really have been called light cruisers but the RN refered to them as destroyers so that HM Treasury bean counters would accept them in greater numbers.
Their successors, the Type 82, were originally supposed to be frigate sized ships (82 succeeding the Type 81 Tribal class) but HMS Bristol ended up as big as the County class.
The next RN air defence ships (T42) were much closer to frigates in size and armament. Similar to the US Perry class frigates. But as air defence ships they were called destroyers.
The final batch Type 22 frigates were similar size to the later T42s but their ASW role led to them being called frigates.
In today's RN the big air defence ships are destroyers (T45) and the general purpose escorts are frigates (T23, T26 and T31)

 

[uk 75]

Perhaps the best known saga of RN ships by any other designation were the three Invincible class laid down in the 1970s.
Derived from the Escort Cruisers cancelled in 1962 they emerged in 1966 as Command Cruisers operating helicopters and controling a destroyer/frigate task force.
The media refered to them as Though Deck Cruisers.
With a new government in 1979 the ships could become aircraft carriers (CVS). The third ship was renamed Ark Royal after the last fixed wing carrier. A TV series about Ark had made it a household name in UK.
Once in service the Invincibles evolved into true carriers, losing their forward Seadart launcher.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The County class guided weapons ships should really have been called light cruisers but the RN refered to them as destroyers so that HM Treasury bean counters would accept them in greater numbers.

They were called destroyers because they were designed to destroyer standards of stores endurance, self-maintenance and amenities.

 

[MadRat]

If you move a fleet, you probably want fairly uniform screening vessels. I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics trying to coordinate vessels spread across tonnages of 25k, 12k, 8k, 4k, 2k, 1k, and half a K. Pivoting the fleet would create a lot of holes in coverage.

 

[Firefinder]

If you move a fleet, you probably want fairly uniform screening vessels. I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics trying to coordinate vessels spread across tonnages of 25k, 12k, 8k, 4k, 2k, 1k, and half a K. Pivoting the fleet would create a lot of holes in coverage.

So long the designers and trainers are on their game thats a none issue.

So long as the fleet as a fairly similar turning raduis it a simple matter of ordering port by X degrees and each ship captain modifing the orders as need to their ship to match the rest.

This is a thing that waz worked out well over a century ago, pre first Euro F up that was WW1.