Large European Frigates: Destroyers in Disguise? 

Last time I checked, destroyers were still small and fast highly maneuverable small warships that could catch the tiny but deadly torpedoboats. In the Dutch Royal Navy, they were called just that: torpedoboat-destroyers. But the Americans lost every sense of scale and designation after that Star Wars movie in 1977.

UK design philosophy has - since the war - to designated Destroyers as an anti-air focus and Frigates as anti-submarine focus. This has shifted from the 1980s to also include a more general capability. On size, all front line UK warships are designed to have a flight deck and hanger capable of landing a Chinook and storing a large AW101 (Merlin) sized helicopter. All front line designs also include space for Royal Marines and other specialist teams along with an internal boat storage. These all drive commonality is design and ship size. Although crew numbers have declined through automatic, current UK designs include space for Marines.specialist teams on top and crew accommodation space and single bunking have also resulted in a major increase is ship size. These basic factors go back to the Type 42/type 23 designs (the Type 22 was the last single purpose warship class the UK built). UK experience with the smaller, relatively lower capability warships such as the Type 21 in the Falklands war is that these ships are quite fragile and limited value as a result. Even the new Type 31 design which - arguably - is a modern day equivalent to the Type 21 design concept is resulting in a relatively large warship with displacement or around 7,000 tons. All current UK designs (Type 45, Type 31 and Type 26) are light cruiser size vessels on a pre-WW2 design basis. Many of the same factors are also driving the design parameters for other European navies and other countries that are using essentially European designs. The next generation of US frigate design will probably end up at a quite similar size.

Its all alphabetically ordered from largest to smallest: Aircraft Carrier Battleship Cruiser Destroyer Entermission. Remember to drink water, hydration is very important. Frigate Gorvette ... Patrol boats

Great video! You should do more of these since this type of explanation is hard to find. One thing I didn't really see mentioned is the political reasons for calling a ship a frigate. 'Destroyer' is judged to be too aggressive sounding. Atleast that's the reason often given in Dutch media. This also goes to explains why countries like France and the UK (the two most interventionist nations of western europe) do have ships designated as destroyers and also as frigates. Furthermore, I'd guess the downsizing of a lot of European navies also plays a part in creating the european frigate. Nations like the Netherlands used to be able to field independent strike groups. With the exception of Italy, France and the UK, most european nations now just have a handful of ships. In that context it makes less sense to call those ships 'destroyers', understood as fleet escort ships. That's no longer the role those ships have within a respective nations' navy since there aren't enough ships either way.

Let's really start something. What's the difference between a boat and a ship.

it's so sad that you only have 3 videos, just saw this video and enjoyed it so much because of the quality and content that I expected to see way more! hope to see more videos coming out of this channel!

In Indonesia, the Martadinata-class Frigate is also known as PKR/Perusak Kawal Rudal. Translated as Guided Missile Destroyer Escort. Literally: Perusak = Destroyer Kawal = Escort Rudal = Missile

Whats the difference between a destroyer and a Frigate Destroyer starts with D frigate starts with F

it's like the Soviet's "aircraft carrying cruiser" vs "small aircraft carrier" I would tend to agree that the Perry probably one of the best fit of the designation frigate.

So the Chinese made a smaller, simple to mass produce design with adequate capabilities that is affordable in large numbers? Then rapidly built 30 of them in the timespan most nations would build 5-10 max? *That sounds highly Chinese to me.*

Wait until Germany builds it 9.000 tons MKS 180 "frigate"... 😂

My father used to work at the now closed german shipyard in Emden Germany. They were building U-Boots and surface units for the Germany Navy and export customers. He once told me that the destination for the newer "friagates" in germany service, i think he was refereing to the F-123 and F-124 classes, als frigates was partly a political one. Germany nowerdays is a very pacifist country and justifying the expense for those ships after the end of the cold war could have been a political problem if they were seen as "big" destroyers rather then those nice and cost effective frigates. That is of course only anecdotal. Nice Video

I always thought the main reason was to get the funding through parliament. After all, "destroyer" sounds much more expensive than "frigate", so it is much easier to get the funding if they are voting for the much cheaper sounding "frigate" name.

The reason you have SM-2 and ESSM (and CIWS) is that the air defence system is conceived as a 3-layered system: SM-2 for the outer, ESSM for the middle and CIWS for inner layer/point defence.

I think in a way what you see happening with warships mirrors what happened with tanks post World War 2. You went from having a whole bunch of specialized varieties - light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, infantry tanks breakthrough tanks, etc - to just happen one well engineered generalist design, the MBT. A lot of this is inevitable due to the way Wars are fought - much more decentralized and asymmetrical, even against a near Pier adversary to the point that you will rarely if ever have the luxury of _choosing_ what role you are specific combat vehicle will be serving - and convergence of multiple technologies to put a lot more capability down to a much lower level than before

In the Spanish Navy case, is a political matter, pacifist-leftist parties doesn’t want to heard about “Destroyer” , because it remind them about “war” and destruction; so the final approach it was Frigate. But we surely can say that if they could, will named as “Third World Humanitarian Peacekeeper Patrol Vessel” hahaha...

At least in Europe, it's mostly down to politics! (Saying that as a German) It's way easier to convince parliament to buy some Frigates than some Destroyers. And if you have their approval you make damn sure you build the biggest Frigates you can.

Another reason why the Dutch called the DZP class a frigate is due to the stigma attached to the word "destroyer". The general population here is quite anti-military, so the word "Destroyer" would grab a lot more attention in the media than "frigate"

And then there's the new German F125 class frigate, which packs a whopping 7,200 tonnes, but is limited to RAM missiles for close in air defense just like the South Korean frigate shown in the video... Yes, I'm aware it's not really build for full on warfare, but rather for stabilization missions, but it's still a pretty odd design and raises questions if it is worth its money.

I think u missed the best example. The type 45 destroyer and the horizon class frigate, u included both as destroyers but the horizon is classed by the French as a frigate. This best shows that two ships with a joint design past and almost identical load outs and look are classed differently by different nations

Ships are now classified by job not size, in theory we can have a frigate the size of a battleship and a destroyer the size of a patrol boat

You fail to recognise that in the Royal Navy, Frigates and Destroyer are not based on displacement but on the ships primary purpose.. whilst both are caperble of undertaking general purpose tasks; the Destroyer is primarily an air defense vessel and a Frigate is primarily an ASW vessel. Small Escort vessels are now the off shore patrol/ fisheries protection vessels

The Royal Navy has a simple definition to differentiate between Destroyers and Frigates, both are ocean going general purpose escorts but Destroyers have area defence SAMS, Frigates have point defence only and more of a focus on ASW. Under this the Spanish 'F100' Frigates are in fact Destroyers (DDG) as the Australians have classified them. The new type 26 Frigates being built for the RN, RAN and RCN are in fact spiritual successors to the cruisers of WW2 (with an ASW bias), the lack of area defence SAMs precludes them from being classed as Destroyers. Worth noting the RN is also simultaneously building the type 31 Frigates, to fulfil the more conventional Frigate role. A lot of Euro Navies class Destroyers as Frigates because of the political perception that Destroyers are more expensive than Frigates, and would be resisted by the treasury of that Nation. Hence brand them as something seen as less expensive and get the capability anyway.

We need to start breaking down Frigates into Heavy Frigate and Light Frigate, term Frigate is basically obsolete, like calling WW2 era ships Cruisers and nothing else, when you had anything from 6000t light Cruisers armed with 5.25in to 25,000t “large Cruisers(Alaska class) armed with 12in Guns,

And then you have Japan with their Kongo-Atago-Maya series large 'destroyers' as well as the helicopter destroyers. If we take their historic ship naming convention seriously however, they're practically cruisers and carriers.

Apart from the single squadron for home defense, the Danish Navy also operates two ocean-going squadrons comprising 12 surface warships. This makes the Danish Navy the world´s largest ocean-going surface fleet of warships in relation to the population (5,7 million). One squadron consist of five large, stealthy, guided missile destroyers in two classes: Three of Iver Huitfeldt class (6645 tons) and two of Absalon class (6600 tons). The reason they are all classified as "frigates" is of course that the Danes are extremely polite and thoughtful and wouldn´t want anyone to feel frightened. The other ocean-going squadron consist of four Thetis-class (3500 tons) patrol frigates and three corvette-sized (2000 tons) ocean-going raiders. Again, the reason they are all classified as "patrol vessels" is clearly that the Danes are so humble, modest and well-mannered. Cheers.

the Horizon class french and Italian fregates are monsters only 3 meters shorter than the Arleigh burke class destroyers

years ago i was attached to staff at destroyer developement group two, at new port, rhode island. interesting video

Funny what you had to say about the BPDMS being lackluster. My father, a civilian mechanical engineer, starting at the outbreak of WW2 working his way up through the Bureau of Weapons, Naval Sea Systems Command (first in the "temporary" shacks on The Mall, then into a real building at Crystal City, Va. across from the now Reagan airport) to be it's Deputy Director and he said the same thing. He said that it was better only than the last choice, that being having sailors throw potatoes at incoming missilles. I'm pretty sure he said at one time they put it on carriers, too. Gotta run but will return to watch and listen to your presentation. Subscribed!

In the Spanish Armada happends the same problem as Dutch Navy, Álvaro de Bazán Class are esentially a full capable destroyer, but due to political reasons, they were designated as frigates. Imagine the point of these, because there is a story of the defense minister of that time. When during a display of a new type of troop transport ( URO Vamtac), they were shown the porter and add: inside there can be carried a lot of medical supply...... Not wrong, but a very bruh momento.

The type 45 Destroyer is not a small destroyer. It displaces about 9400 tons which is more than 2000 t more than a Hobart/ alvaro de bazan class destroyer/ frigate and about the same or higher displacement (depending on which flight) than an Arleigh Burke. Not to mention the Zeven Provincien class which displaces just 6000 t. The Radar on the Type 45 is also greatly superior (especially the Sampson Radar) to the Radars on the smaller classes and can therefore detect targets earlier and at greater ranges (up to 400 km compared to 150 for the dutch APAR) and can also track more targets simultaneously (up to 1000 compared to the Dutch APARs 200).

The Singaporean Formidable class is still the most powerful in South East Asia with 8xHarpoons anti-ship missiles and 32-cell VLS for Aster15/30s. Even Indonesia and Malaysia cannot match it's anti-air capabilities

Great video, would be nice if you touched a bit on Russians frigate who, for their size, are fitted with "flagship" technology's and weaponry.

The French and the German navies explicitly state that they use the term frigate also for what the US calls destroyer. Actually the new German F126 frigate is at around 10'000 displacement bigger than the USN Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The Sachsen-class frigates are essentially air defense destroyers, so they even have the same role. Also, the new European patrol corvettes are almost as big as US Perry-class frigates. So the terminology is clearly different.

Even the Indian Navy is blurring the lines between frigates and destroyers when it comes to total displacement. The first modern stealth frigates of the Indian Navy i.e. Talwar class displaces 4035 tons at full load and carries 8 anti-ship/land attack cruise missiles along with 24 Shtil-1 medium range surface to air missiles which are fired from a single arm launcher. Total of 6 ships are currently in service with 4 more joining the service by 2027. The next class, Shivalik class displaces 6200 tons at full load and carries 8 Brahmos antiship/land attack supersonic cruise missile along with 32 Barak 1 SRSAM and 24 Shtil-1 medium range surface to air missiles. A total of 3 ships are in service. The next class is the Nilgiri class, a total of 7 are to be built, with 6 ships currently under construction at 2 Indian shipyards. This class displaces 6670 tons and carries 32 Barak 8 missiles for air defence role along with 8 Brahmos missiles for land attack and antiship role. It is expected by 2027 that the Indian Navy will be operating 20 modern multirole stealth frigates.

gonna pick a little typo, the missile on type 052c destroyer is called HHQ-9 (sea Red flag - 9), not HQQ-9 that you wrote.

The SM2 has better area defense capabilities while the ESSM is primary still a point defense system. The name games are primary political motivated. Frigate sounds more defensive and less aggressive as destroyer. Also whats called now a destroyer exceeds by far what was called once a cruiser.

The Iver Huitfeldt is the best bang for the buck, for less than usd400 million u can get compared to a Hobart usd2 billion. You can spec the Iver Huitfeldt with more SAMs and a towed array sonar if needed.

Something about ESSM and ASMs. The T45/Horizon design philosophy, as opposed to Sea Sparrow, is to have further reach in order to destroy the launch platform rather than saturate the missile itself at close range. This was a result of combat experience in the Falklands with aircraft launched ASMs and is more of a doctrinal difference than a disadvantage. One approach is multi layered, the other is saturation but it is overly simplistic to assume more missiles = better.

Navies need marketing people inventing names such as "Sports Utility Vehicles". The old names do not suffice anymore. So, the Zeven Provinciën Class could be named something like "layered air defence platform" or something.

Hobart class Destroyers fully loaded are between 6250-7000 tonnes which allows for further developments and equipment updates.. OHP Frigates displace 4100 tonnes. Quite a difference in size.

Right now, ship classifications are a mess, which isn't exactly new. Historically, ship classifications have come in and out of clarity as ship design philosophies have been developed and then slowly became obsolete. The design philosophy you talk about in this video is a long-range ship with a substantial air defense capability, modest ASW capability, limited anti-surface capability, and facilities for a helicopter or two. It spans from Formidable-class frigates (3500 tons) to Zumwalt class destroyers (16,000 tons). The fact that we call these ships frigates, destroyers and cruisers, with little apparent regard to tonnage or role is extremely confusing. This isn't like WW2, where a ship with 16 inch guns could do distinctly different things than a ship with 8 inch guns, or a ship with 5 inch guns and torpedo tubes, nor is it like the Cold War, where destroyer-escorts/frigates served a distinct role. The small size of phased arrays and VLS cells makes it possible to do substantially similar things in vastly different hull sizes, just with greater magazine depth and better capabilities at the extreme end of what radars can do. It makes ship classification very tricky.

The increasingly powerful, smaller size missile also has a huge part to play. If we look at the US LCS you'll realize they choose the hellfire as the main weapon (mainly due to size). This may be one of the future focus, minimalizing the size of missile while increasing the destruction power of the mineralized warheads.

I was on a public tour of the Ivar Huitfeldt last year. I asked one of the AAW officers about the SAM mix, and he said the Mk 41s were ready for SM-2, but that the cells were empty at present because the missiles had not yet been budgeted. So ESSM only for now. I haven't been able to confirm that.

HUbber class in fact is a Albaro de Bazan but build in Australia.. under Australian licens and with some modification... but is the same ship... i steh psanish licens to be build by Australian Navy

The difference between a destroyer and frigate is job title not the ship. Entry level ship that is assigned to lighter duty is called a frigate ( search and destroy or efficient defensive capabilities) A destroyer, having up to middleweight 8,000 tons starts the employment of a ship containing more offensive implements of war, acting as a blue water Greyhound ranging to littoral combatant with more punching power and a cruiser has more war fighting and so forth. A destroyer designation suggest a fleet combat component during regional planned attacks where a frigate designation suggest a tactical presence for an offshore region.

At 3:26 "in the middle, just ignore that". damn, i am like "that ship is the size of our navy's flagship"

Note to everyone: Since the mid-/late- Cold War, the RN has labelled ASW combatants as frigates, AAW = destroyers. Nothing to do with size - the early T22 frigates overlapped with the smaller T42 destroyers! The USN labels single-screw combatants frigates, twin-screw destroyers - making DDs/DDGs bigger and faster (so, better for their carrier battle groups). As their last design pre-FFG(X) dates from the '70s, this might change. The RN revived 'frigate' in WW2 for fast single-role escorts - destroyers were fast GP escorts, sloops and corvettes slow escorts. (They revived 'corvette' for the Flower class - 'whalers' didn't sound warlike enough. (They'd considered classing the larger-than-standard Tribal class 'corvettes', but they ended up destroyers).

Shivaik class of Indian are the largest stealth frigate in world 6800 tons of displacement almost as comparable to a destroyer. However due to it's light armament , they are considered as frigates.

I think some of the confusion also boils down to political issues. Destroyers are percieved- not unfairly- as massive, expensive ships. Where as a "frigate" is seen as a more reasonable request. So they put together a DD type ship, and call it a "frigate" to keep the windbags appeased, and increase the liklihood of approval. Germany, I believe, also has some political/legal issues- a legacy of WWII, and large warships, like DD's, are restricted. Then you have France, which uses the term Frigate for all med size surface ships. There are "light" frigates- which are the more frigate-ey type; and heavy frigates- which are DD's. It's essentially a whatever works thing now. The name is more reflective of it's role within the navy, than of a particular ship type. Not unlike the original meaning of cruiser.

One of the reasons why the Iver Huitfeldt is a frigate and not a destroyer is that the danish language doesn't have a proper word for destroyer so the English word is used but it just sounds dumb so the designation of frigate is used, initially they where designated as patrol ships but to avoid NATO confusion it was changed. Also while most of the Heavy frigates are portrayed as Air Defense ships they are more multi-role than the light frigates as they can also perform ASW and SuW. the Iver Huitfeldt-class in particular can be loaded with other mission equipment rather quickly using the STANFLEX modules

Definition of different ships: A Cruiser has the capability to operate independently in Blue Sea and to fight against U-Boats, Planes/Missiles and ships. A Destroyer has the same capability as a cruiser, but is sailing in a formation. A Frigate is specialized only in one of the capabilities which a cruiser has, and is also sailing in a formation. And a Corvette is as specialized as a Frigate, much smaller, and operating near the coast.

Since the end of the era of Naval treaties, like the Washington treaty of 1922, there are no defining categories to describe warships in general, the treaties defined warships as battleships, carriers, submarines, cruisers, destroyers, etc, etc and placed limits on their tonnage and armament and which country was allowed to build them and how many ships they could build. Today there are no categories really since you can have destroyers like the Zumwalts outclassing and outweighing cruisers like the Ticonderoga and the Arleigh Burke class almost matching the Ticonderoga as well, and that confounding description is not only in the US Navy, every Navy in the World has a particular way to describe their ships and political considerations, naval traditions and all sorts of factors make for a far more confusing nomenclature than was the case during WWII. What has become clear in the last decade or so is that the navies procuring the largest and most well armed warships are the US Navy, the Chinese PLAN, the Japanese MSDF and the Korean Republic´s Navy, they are all building warships that in tonnage match the old definition of cruiser and in armament outclass the rest of the world including the European Navies, Russia, India, Brazil, et al. The Arleigh Burke Class, the Zumwalts, the Atago and Maya Classes and the Sejong the Great class and the upcoming KDX-III are being faced by the Chinese Type 052D and Type 055 and they all have far more VLS and missile armament than their European Counterparts. We could say that today´s equivalent Battleship race is happening in the far east, the European ships though well armed are definitely not in the same category in sheer firepower having just a few of them a maximum of 48 missiles in their VLS launchers while the US and East Asian equivalents have close to a hundred or over a hundred.

dont forget the Gorshkov mate, that thing will be a serious bit of kit when they have sufficient numbers of them

Actually, you did a relatively good job pronouncing Álvaro de Bazán

In french, there is no more ship called Destroyer since a long , even those designated with D .they are all called "fregate". destroyer/frigat is USN/RN things

The Australian Hunter class destroyers are quite similar in size to their new frigates currently being built. As near as I can tell the major difference seems to be in roles. The destroyers are air warfare fleet protection assets and are specialist ships, while the frigates are anti submarine, and more general purpose ships. Size is no longer a differentiator between frigates and destroyers, but the role is quite different.

Frigates are amazing ships, they are cheap, lethal and have multi role capabilities. Currently Russia, China and India have Best Frigates, and they heavily invested in those class.... they are almost like a small destroyers.....USA navy selected Litoral class ships instead of frigates years ago , but last month they also ordered frigates from fincantieri. I'm from India and we are working on NILGIRI CLASS STEALTH FRIGATES, which are coming with Lethal weapon package and Advanced radars.

Meanwhile in Germany Engineers from Shipyard : With this size in tonnage and weapon capability, shouldn't it be classified as destroyer? German Politics literally (for real) going: Nah..Frigate is good enough, destroyer sounds wayheyhey to agressive!

I agree that there can be a huge overlap between Destroyers and Frigates. In fact, it is a meaningless nomenclature. Typically, the difference is that Destroyers can cover long range air defense roles, having better radars You can put as many VLS as you want in either class, and pack as many missiles as you want. In fact, you could put right away 192 CAMM-ER in the Horizon ships, if needed...

A lot of modern Guided Missile Destroyers are technically Guided Missile Cruisers by tonnage and armament

It took a lot to sink a OHP frigate. Not very confident with modern designs.

Frigate was a term given to ships not worth being included in line of battle during the XVII and XIX centuries, while "destroyer" was used since XX century to describe a role which essentially was to protect larger ships from torpedo boats. Cruisers were fast, long range ships able to travel alone without relying on support from smaller ships (like BB and CV). These roles nowadays are mostly extinct and ships (evolved in the class of Aircraft Carrier Cruisers) while covering roles much different from the original ones are still being named after the old ones based on their size. The Cruiser term today make sense only for nuclear ships able to travel the world without refueling, destroyers and Frigates cover essentially the same role, except the fact that modern destroyers are almost all anti air ships with large hangars for helicopters. Reduction in weapon system size shrank the distances between CL, DD and Frigates: AEGIS was born as a Cruiser based platform (Ticonderoga) but was later adapted to DD and now to Frigates making larger AA Cruisers De facto extinct. Even the huge Zumwalt was classified as "large destroyer" and not Cruiser An interesting comparison between the various classes would have been the Italian Navy. I'm not picking the USN because they are currently shifting roles or decommissioning many ships which will not be replaced by equivalent ones (Ticonderoga) and trying creating new roles previously uncovered (Indipendence/Freedom, Zumwalt).The French Navy, despite having almost the same ships as Italy, is more confusing because it uses a different denomination protocol then the rest of the world like frigate 1st class (a destroyer), 2nd class ecc. Italian Frigates and Destroyers have different roles in different scenery, despite somehow have enough flexibility to overlap. In particular we should refer to the trilogy Horizon, Fremm, and "Pattugliatore Di Altura" or PPA (high sea patrol). Horizon is slightly larger then FREMM and is a classified as Destroyer: it accommodates more crew in less cramped spaces and has been developed as a AA fleet area protection ship. It's Air search and discover radar system, despite not totally different hardware wise from FREMM systems, is developed with a logic of coordination and direction of all weapon system in the fleet, so that a Fremm, a Carrier or a PPA could launch an Aster missile and let it in the hands of the Horizon fire direction. It also has more space for accommodating wells for vertical launcher (nowadays not fully occupied), is has improved range for long term missions, is reasonably fast at cruise speed and built in a single version with top of the line AA radar system despite being only slightly larger then Fremm. It is also better suited to accommodate a fleet commander headquarters (it reminds me of the WWII Pola cruiser in respect to their sister ships). The Fremm line is multi class despite maintaining a certain degree of weapon systems communality with other versions and Horizon, including a radar which is 90% (for AA FREMM) of what is inside Horizon itself. There are 3 main variants: anti submarine, anti air and multi role with the latest one being more oriented to gun and missile strike and land operations support. These ships are slightly smaller then Horizon with reduced crew, which allows for more space for weapons systems but this also may increase the workload for the crew in long missions at sea. It is also slower then Horizon at cruise speed, which increase fuel consumption to keep up with the fleet at sea (carrier escort). The FREMM frigate can work alone or be integrated in a fleet AA system, being able to pick it's own targets or link the direction of it's weapon systems to larger ships, like Horizon or Type 45 (same weapon system), or even other FREMM. What is most important, it is less expensive then Horizon allowing it to be purchased in greater numbers and being more flexible then Horizon, works perfectly as a coastal waters defence system (which is why the weapons sytem appealed so much to the USN, searching something existing to replace its failed Litoral combat ship) and it can operate in Anti Submarine roles on it's own. Finally the high sea patrol ship PPA will be less capable as a point defence system for the fleet then Fremm, but it is extremely adaptable to a general role of submarine hunting and anti ship cover then the larger frigate with some degree of AA, will be even less expensive then FREMM, as it's available as Light, Light+ and Full (the first two easily refittable in the Full version thank to a modular weapon system). The PPA carrying the full complement of 16 Aster vertical launchers, will relay on more advanced radar system from Horizon or FREMM and form carriers it is supposed to escort, to which it can link it's air to air defence systems leasing it's weapons to more advanced weapon control systems. The reduced dimension make it also very fast and less thirsty which is ideal for long range sea patrolling, but here again we are falling in the Frigate/DD bracket of displacement: 4500 tons.

The question I have is: do these large frigates, which seek to optimise AAW relatively lose their ASW capability, or are they true all-purpose ships? I note that in the past people such as the RN's DNC and Churchill hated large destroyers designs as 'they would become a prime target for a torpedo themselves'. Do these larger all-purpose ships become too important to throw into harm's way as you lose AA cover if lost to a submarine and therefore lost ASW capability as it become to risky to use it? Or does the use of Helicopters as a major ASW asset mitigate this risk somewhat?

type 45 is a frigate in the true sense - it is an English tradition. destroyers came in WWII, and were meant for head-on surface warfare, with secondary role of anti submarine, and escort against air attack, only as time progressed - it was the 'frigate' before the frigate was reintroduced. the British termed 'frigate' to denote a smaller warship than a battleship, cruiser and destroyer, and was for submarine and anti-air escort missions - a cheaper alternative. destroyers attacked large capital warships head-on in groups - often with torpedoes and guns. a frigate was not used primarily in these types of engagements. but, that may change, now - there being a shortage of warships overall for whatever purposes. traditionally, (17th century and before) a frigate was a well balanced, smaller 'ship of the line' with greater speed, maneuverability and lighter armament, designed for fighting other 'frigates' sometimes alone, sometimes part of a group. it is now designed evenly; multi purpose; defense and offense balanced. while a destroyer is weighed toward an aggressive, head-on engagement - willing to attack the larger capital ships; it has a 'sacrificial quality to it' - a beast willing to die in a fight. tonnage should not be the only consideration for being a frigate, destroyer or cruiser but it is a part of the classification - armament and purpose are the other two qualifications...but of the three, the purpose is the primary factor in class designation; the public tends to view things by easy to see factors; size i.e. tonnage. the type 45 may be seen as a 'heavy frigate' by tonnage. but by purpose it is a frigate - even though the admiralty, the designers, and the public may acknowledge it as a 'destroyer', mostly because of tonnage. by the above information, i would therefore acknowledge most evenly balanced small warships are really frigates - unless they demonstrate an aggressive ability to engage large capital warships (aircraft carriers) as part of a 'attack groups/wolf packs'...the Russian Sovremenny class comes to mind... lastly, 'frigate' is a more European (British) term, but it is used worldwide, depending on political whim/purpose/designation as defensive-purposed ship.

Perhaps we can draw the frigate from age of sail Europe, perhaps a sense of naval tradition ?

Aussie upgraded ANZAC frigate has the Phased Array Radar, ESSM, and Harpoon... etc (just carries less of) plus the 5-inch 54 caliber Mark 45 dual-purpose gun. plus other defenses. To a lesser extent, the upgraded Kiwi ANZAC Has the solid-state Smart-2 Mk2 Radar carries 20 CAMM as well as CWIS, same 5-inch 54 caliber Mark 45 dual-purpose gun plus other defenses, etc and their displacement only around 3,600. The only thing the upgraded Kiwi ANZAC's lack is shipborne Anti Ship Missile they only have a short-to-medium range Penguin anti-ship missile, designated AGM-119 (helo launched) but the point is there is room and for harpoon and they are fitted for but not with.

Certainly in price.... old Burke's used to cost about 1 B. Anyway, look at Japanese Kongo or Korean KDX-III parked along Ticonderonga - suddenly a 'cruisier'.

nice put in general, one correction, the Chinese missile is HHQ-9 not HQQ-9

The question is probably inverted. Destroyers appeard in the 1880s 1890s due to torpedo maturation. Light ships around 1000 t. Above : frigate. And above : cruisers. Above : battleships. The mess comes from Destroyers suddenly pushed above frigates (in the 1970s ?? or 1980 ??), replacing cruisers. This is the only question : why in hell pushing destroyers above frigates ? ? Reading an article on De Seven Provincien this was written :"almost a light cruiser".... that makes sense. Destroyer was born due to torpedo incredible capabilities in the early 20 th century. Which is over ... Destroyer : rest in peace (I love you too). Next talk : sloop versus corvettes versus ... destroyer (the real one : light) ? ? ? Did my tour of duty on a frigate :-)

The koninklijke Nederlandse marine (Royal Netherlands Navy) has 6 frigates 2 multi purpose and 4 anti air that are more like destroyers .and then we have 4 petrol ship that are more like the traditional frigates.

Frigates, destroyers and cruisers seem to a very flexible groups of ships. When I was in the U. S. Navy we had Destroyer Escorts, Destroyers and Cruisers. The DE's became "ocean escorts" at some point. DD's were about 350 feet long in WWII and now are over 500 feet. Some ships were originally classified by the USN as frigates, and are now classified as cruisers. DE types are now "frigates." Complicating this is the USN LCS class which by some definitions might be called frigates. The first ships in the Continental Navy, which became the U. S. Navy, were six frigates: small, agile sailing ships. I'm confused. I hope the admirals have it figured out!

Very informative and excellent presentation. Many thanks.

The main reason that the 7 Provinciën class is a frigate, is more a political reason. A destroyers sounds like an aggressive type of ship.

And some corvettes are almost frigates.. The Iver Huitfeld is popular. Been sold to UK, Poland and Indonesia.

That video is just half the answer to the title you wrote. At best.. You practically already said it that frigates are bound to certain tasks. So while basically just covering Air-Warfare Frigates there are more tasks. Like submarine hunting etc… You should take into account how many missions over which time can be fulfilled! But the first half was quite good 🤝

Frigate and Destroyer used to be a description of a ships size, now it's a ships roll.

It's basically true! Australia is getting British type 26 frigates..However, they will displace up to 8,000 tons and have better attack and defence than the British ships! They are actually larger than many destroyers! Methinks some reclassifications may have to happen!

Really the terms "Frigate" and "Destroyer" are simply holdovers from the "good old days". Destroyers evolved to hunt torpedo boats at a time when Frigates had pretty much ceased to exist as a class. The modern Frigate class was simply reuse of a name to describe ASW-focused ships that were not equivalent to a destroyer - they were slower as they didn't need speed to hunt submarines and they favoured ASW over other weapons. If anything it's the "Destroyer" that's outdated. Frigates historically were ships that operated at a distance from home waters and fulfilled a multitude of tasks, which more accurately describes both modern Frigates and Destroyers.

You've missed a few things in your description. Quality of the type of AAW missiles. For example ESSM are usually used in pairs to get a kill while Aster missiles are more accurate and used one at a time. Second Aster missiles are actively homing vice ESSM which are semi active homing. That also changes the numbers required. Thirdly Destroyers are a British tradition label. Continental Europe has generally used the term Frigate to mean any deep-sea escort ship. This is why the US, Asian navies, Australia and the UK used the term destroyer where as Spain, French, Dutch and Germans usually use the term frigate.

Also mention how the soviet udaloy class destroyer has a code name project 1155 fregat (frigate)

Type-45 is more akin to a 'Battle-frigate', than a 'Destroyer' - it's heavily armed for multi-role/purpose. since wwII, destroyers were for surface warfare primarily; taking out capital warships and using torpedoes - surface combatant, not escort, or multi purpose primarily, which is what frigate describes (multi role), tonnage plays a secondary role in the description, because it is changing over time, and according to whom names which class of new warship. so, here, above we have an 'expert' who's really not an expert at-all, because not only - America is not the center of the universe, in naval diction...

Nice video host, thank you for sharing. Wow just for the record host those vessels are very, very huge to be designated or classify as the Frigates. Infact i think they can somehow over sized those other existing modern Destroyers, bcoz of there great size and tonnage.

Now i think u should talk about the different between small frigate and large Corvettes because the r Corvette that r more powerful the some small frigates like the one u mentioned from south Korea

Please talk about the new Chinese Type 055 Destroyer in another video.

Boi left out the FREMMs oof

During WW 2 they were used as mine layers also.

Also the dutch navy does not like agressive terms like destroyer.

Next Frigate of korean in 2024(FFX Batch-III) will have a same level of radar with SPY6 admr. Nowadays there is no regulation between frigate, destroyer, cruiser except for magagine and size.

Not talking about the Russian frigates such as the Gorshkov class and Grigorovich class does a disservice to the topic.

Maybe some videos about some planned but never created warships. Things like the Design A-150, H-class proposals, or Arsenal ships

Great content man! Thanks for the upload!

In Australia the new hunter class frigates are expected to actually be larger then our destroyers. Really guess frigate/destroyer maybe designated due to their roles instead of their size.

I think the new type 26 being built, called the "global combat ship" is the successor to destroyer/frigate.

Pre ww2 you had 1300 ton destroyers and 2500 to 4000 ton light cruisers.

Incheon is pronounced more like In-schon fyi Love what I'm seeing on your channel. I'm a bit of a naval history buff, but I focus on 1870-1950 or so. I'd love to discuss.

We will see a blurring of what is considered a destroyer vs. cruiser, destroyer vs. frigate and frigate vs. corvette.

The Aster missiles are much better than the sm2 missiles! The aster is launched at 1 missile for 1 incoming missile whereas the sm2's are launched as 2 sm2 for each incoming missile so erroding the superior missile loadout of other destroyers as the Arleigh Burke. Also the tyoe45 destroyer is much bigger than any frigate at 9000 tonnes plus. The Sampson radar on the type 45 can track 1000 targets the size of a baseball at 300 miles allowing it to engage incoming missiles at much greater range than the ESSM!! So the type 45 and horizon class destroyers are far more capable than the frigates mentioned here! I did enjoy the video though other than the things mentioned above :)

It's a shame you don't upload anymore but I understand you have a personal life. You're the only channel that I know that does this sort of content,almost like a naval only matsimus lol. If anybody knows another channel like this could you let me know

FOR LEGAL REASONS. SAME TYPE. NIPPON CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CARRIERS, BUT HELICOPTER DESTROYERS ARE PERFECTLY OK!