Besides the aircraft carrier and LPD/LHD there are 4 types of major surface ships. The Cruiser, Destroyer, Frigate, and Corvette. It seems as though the definition of each is becoming very murky. We have missile cruisers, anti-air frigates, air warfare destroyers, ect. Eventually ship classification may become simplified. Ships may be classified by tonnage and the number of verticle launch missiles are carried. Any type of ship that has the Aegis type system would be classified with the prefix "air defense" then either destroyer or frigate depending on tonnage and number of VLS. Under this classification(my idea), a destroyer would have over 80 VLS and weigh in at over 6,000 tons. A destroyer over 10,000 tons would be considered a large destroyer. A Corvette would simply be defined by tonnage. Anything under 4,000 tons would be a classified as a corvette. Then there is the Cruiser. The future of the cruiser is uncertain. The US is the only country with plans to build cruisers (CG(X)). If the Cruiser remains popular it would be the largest ship of the new classification. There is currently very little information on the CG(X). What is known is that it will have a similar hull to DD(X) but be larger and carry more missiles. Being that the DD(X) weighs in at 14,000 tons and has 80 VLS. Based on the new classification, the Crusier would be any ship that wieghs in above 15,000 tons.
Future surface ship designations
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
NATO already has some rules for ship designation. In the NATO STANAG designator for ships, the vessels are broken out by function, size and ability to a degree. Each vessel is also assigned a two to four letter designation to allow rapid determination of what the capabilities of a vessel are.
Per the NATO STANAG:
Cruisers are over 150m in length. Also if a ship mounts a gun 6" or greater it usually is a cruiser (nowadays at least, WWI & WWII are different)
Destroyers generally range in length from 95m-140m in length
Frigates typically are between 75m-150m and have a lighter surface armament than a destroyer.
a Corvette is a small escort ranging in length from 60m-100m.
Each of these four types of vessels then have sub designations which can determine main armament, power source, helicopter support, etc.
Due to the nature of naval design and the length requirement of the different classes, there is usually a correlation between a vessel's tonnage and type.
For example the usual order of increasing tonnage looks like this. Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser.
Corvettes are usually under 2,000 tons and frequently under 1,000. Frigates start around 1,500 tons and usually go up to around 6,000 tons. Destroyers start at around 3,000 tons but are more often in the 6,000-10,000 ton range. Cruisers can start around 7,000 tons and go up from there, though most are around 10,000 tons.
In my opinion, calling the DD(X) program a future Destroyer program was more a political move to get, or keep, funding for the program. With an anticipated tonnage of 14,000 and with plans to include the 155mm (6.1") AGS, the vessel was in reality going to be a cruiser. And calling a cruiser or destroyer hull something else isn't new for the USN. After all, the Ticonderoga (Aegis) class CG, and the Kidd and Spruance class DDGs all used the same hull. The difference between the vessels were in the superstructure and how they were outfitted and used.
Hope this helps.
Per the NATO STANAG:
Cruisers are over 150m in length. Also if a ship mounts a gun 6" or greater it usually is a cruiser (nowadays at least, WWI & WWII are different)
Destroyers generally range in length from 95m-140m in length
Frigates typically are between 75m-150m and have a lighter surface armament than a destroyer.
a Corvette is a small escort ranging in length from 60m-100m.
Each of these four types of vessels then have sub designations which can determine main armament, power source, helicopter support, etc.
Due to the nature of naval design and the length requirement of the different classes, there is usually a correlation between a vessel's tonnage and type.
For example the usual order of increasing tonnage looks like this. Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser.
Corvettes are usually under 2,000 tons and frequently under 1,000. Frigates start around 1,500 tons and usually go up to around 6,000 tons. Destroyers start at around 3,000 tons but are more often in the 6,000-10,000 ton range. Cruisers can start around 7,000 tons and go up from there, though most are around 10,000 tons.
In my opinion, calling the DD(X) program a future Destroyer program was more a political move to get, or keep, funding for the program. With an anticipated tonnage of 14,000 and with plans to include the 155mm (6.1") AGS, the vessel was in reality going to be a cruiser. And calling a cruiser or destroyer hull something else isn't new for the USN. After all, the Ticonderoga (Aegis) class CG, and the Kidd and Spruance class DDGs all used the same hull. The difference between the vessels were in the superstructure and how they were outfitted and used.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
It seems internal politics have more to designate warships than capability currently. I consider warships with area air defence capabilities as a destroyer, yet many nations prefer a frigate, as if designating an area defence warship as a destroyer is a deadly word.
The United States also tends to build larger warships with more range, crossing the Pacific to be deployed in the Far East mandates the larger sizes.
Nations build warships to fill their needs and area. Some nations build smaller warships, others build larger warships. The designations of warships will always be foggy.
The United States also tends to build larger warships with more range, crossing the Pacific to be deployed in the Far East mandates the larger sizes.
Nations build warships to fill their needs and area. Some nations build smaller warships, others build larger warships. The designations of warships will always be foggy.
contedicavour
New Member
I agree and that's why I'd consider more the purpose of the escort ships as the key differentiating factor. Not anymore CG, DDG, FFG, FFL, etc, but rather more AAW, ASW, GP, etc or eventually mix the 2 definitions.Sea Toby said:
For example the French Leygues or most of the Japanese escorts are considered destroyers despite having weak AAW... so if you label them DDG-ASW it would better explain their role.
The Spanish Bazan class would be FFG-AAW, and so on.
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
In todays designation systems, when would a frigate or destroyer qualify for the "G" suffix ?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I know that it refers to guided missile.fylr71 said:I'm pretty sure the g refers to guided missile.
It sure was nice from 1890-1945 when ship designations were more clear cut
: But all frigates and destroyers of today have missiles to some extent, like SSM's or SHORAD's. So how do you distinguish between the missile equipped FF/DD and the missile equipped FFG/DDG ?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The G refers to Guided SSM. If the only missles aboard are SAM, the vessel doesn't get the G designation. A prime example of that would be the Anzac frigates used by Australia & NZ. They are FFH (H standing for Helicopter), with 1, the Warramunga, being an FFG since it has been fitted with Harpoons.Grand Danois said:I know that it refers to guided missile.
But all frigates and destroyers of today have missiles to some extent, like SSM's or SHORAD's. So how do you distinguish between the missile equipped FF/DD and the missile equipped FFG/DDG ?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Ah, thanks.Todjaeger said:
I sorta expected an advanced AAW capability or something like that to be the qualifier. SSM's are on almost all FF/DD nowadays, so perhaps it is a meaningless suffix.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That's why I referenced the Anzac, which so far only 1 has been fitted with SSM. Also the Japanese destroyer classes Haruna & Shirane are both DD class vessels. They have the Sea Sparrow SAM, but no SSM and are only rated as DD. Now granted, the Canadian Iroquois destroyer is rated as a DDG and it has no SSM, but it is equipped with the Standard SAM which has a dual-use anti-ship ability along with normal AAW.Grand Danois said:
Hope this helps.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
HMAS Arunta (I believe) also has Harpoon SSM's fitted now. The entire fleet will be fitted as they proceed through scheduled maintenance periods. AMPTE10 is correct though, the ANZAC's are retaining the FFH designation despite being equipped with an SSM capability.Todjaeger said:
contedicavour
New Member
The first ships to receive "G" for guided missile qualification were the modified cruisers carrying Terrier SAMs in the late '50s and early '60s, followed by the Belknap, Leahy, etc dedicated SAM cruisers.
I'm not sure that even in the '70s ships with only SSMs got the "G" after FF or DD. However what was said in a previous post must be true after all, since for example our Minerva corvettes that carry Aspide SAMs but no Teseo SSMs are FF not FFG.
cheers
I'm not sure that even in the '70s ships with only SSMs got the "G" after FF or DD. However what was said in a previous post must be true after all, since for example our Minerva corvettes that carry Aspide SAMs but no Teseo SSMs are FF not FFG.
cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The G refers to the primary armament of the vessel. SAMs currently I'd say are more defensive than offensive for a ship, since they'd be used to attack incoming AShM and aircraft. Primary armament I think would mean weapons used to launch attacks on an enemy, not respond to an enemy attack. Still, there is certainly room for interpretation. Also, the Standard SAM has a second, surface attack role, so it's predecessors Terrier & Tartar might have had that as well. I'll look to see what else I can find out.contedicavour said:
It seems to me the SAM weapon systems costs so much more than ASuM weapon systems, air defence weappons should be the designator today while I'll admit that anti-surface weapons may have the the designator presently and in the past.
Many frigates being built today are carrying 8 anti-surface missiles and a 8 cell vertical launch system with 32 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles, the frigates being built presently and in the future appear to be carrying more anti-air missiles than anti-surface missiles.
One thing is for certain, anti-air missile weapon systems costs much much more than anti-surface missile weapon systems, especially area air defence missile weapon systems.
Many frigates being built today are carrying 8 anti-surface missiles and a 8 cell vertical launch system with 32 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles, the frigates being built presently and in the future appear to be carrying more anti-air missiles than anti-surface missiles.
One thing is for certain, anti-air missile weapon systems costs much much more than anti-surface missile weapon systems, especially area air defence missile weapon systems.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yes, most ships that are carrying both SAM & AShM carry more SAM missles than the AShM. One of the reasons behind that is the possibility of AShM attack either on the SAM-carrying vessel, or another ship(s) being escorted. AShM attack is one of the cases were the general 3:1 attacker:defender ratio to secure victory is not accurate. A platform could easily launch a volley of 8 Harpoon-type missles at an enemy ship or flotilla and the targeted flotilla might easily feel the need to fire 16, 24 or more SAM to intercept the in-bound Harpoons. And that's just defensive fire, that is not the sort of attack that can reduce or deny an enemy's ability to function. And I believe that is the distinction being made about what constitutes main armament.Sea Toby said:
A lot of the Eurpoean navies also standardized on the "frigate" nomenclature (even for ships that were actually destroyers) in the 1970s/1980s due to the surplus of WWII destroyers then in service; for example if a navy was operating a half-dozen Gearing FRAM's and wanted a new escort, the Parlaiment/Congress/whatever would be more likely to approve funding for a "new" type of vessel rather than more of a type that (on paper, to the uneducated eye) there was already a surplus of.
When I was in the USN (mid/late 1990s) the "G" suffix annotated a ship who's primary function was AA via SAM's; irregardless of it's SSM or ASW-missile capabilities. This was kind of ignored for smaller vessels, for example "PCG" would be something like a La Combattante, with SSMs but no SAMs......wierd.
Also, the last I heard the CG(X) project was dead; and the Tico's will be the last USN cruisers.
When I was in the USN (mid/late 1990s) the "G" suffix annotated a ship who's primary function was AA via SAM's; irregardless of it's SSM or ASW-missile capabilities. This was kind of ignored for smaller vessels, for example "PCG" would be something like a La Combattante, with SSMs but no SAMs......wierd.
Also, the last I heard the CG(X) project was dead; and the Tico's will be the last USN cruisers.
contedicavour
New Member
Well if the new DDGs are > 10,000 tonne giants, no big issueJtimes2 said:
The ships would end up being bigger than current cruisers.
Even in Italy the new Horizons are bigger than the '60s cruisers which carried the same names (Doria, Duilio).
cheers
perfectgeneral
New Member
So the Daring class (type 45) will be DDH-AAW? Aside from a formidable AAW capability (Sampson/PAAMS/Sylver/Aster) they will be mainly armed by their on deck (or in hanger) HELO.
There is a drawing board (or computer equivalent) proposal for a stretched version that might qualify as a cruiser.
There is a drawing board (or computer equivalent) proposal for a stretched version that might qualify as a cruiser.