Military Review

Destroyer and frigate: talking about the future

120
It seems that everything is clear and understandable with modern classes of warships, but if you just look at the terms "destroyer" and "frigate". And if it is thoughtful, questions and bewilderment begin.


Destroyer and frigate: talking about the future

Yes, at first glance everything is clear - ships theoretically differ in displacement, armament, size, tasks ... This is theoretically. But in practice ...

But in practice, there is a world naval mess. In general, the phenomenon on the waves is thoroughly mundane and familiar, approximately like an evil boatswain at the morning formation.

And it turns out that, in fact, there is no clear definition of classes as such! Not at all!

Here is an example of the well-known type "Arlie Burke". Full displacement of 9 tons. This is a destroyer.


Here is his opponent, "Sarich". Also a destroyer. Full displacement under 8 tons.


And here is the Iranian destroyer Jamaran of the Moudge class.


And its displacement ... 1500 tons! That is, it seems to be a frigate or even a corvette, but in Iran these ships are called destroyers!

There is "Zamvolt" with its almost 15 tons of displacement. There is a Chinese Type 000 with 055 tons. It is being built so far, but it will be built.

And if to add to this squadron the idea of ​​the destroyer of Project 23560 "Leader", the displacement of which was close to 19 tons according to the papers ...

That is, whoever wants what, creates it.

With frigates, too, everything is not so simple, this is generally, probably, the most controversial class in ocean waves. It is enough to remember where it came from in general. From the French, who invented this small but nimble ship with one (later two) gun deck to fight pirates.

Since the frigate was mainly engaged in patrol service, reconnaissance, escort of merchant ships and raider service, which was then called cruising. And so it happened that some of the frigates, in fact, became cruisers. And when they received steam engines, towers and armor, they became first steam frigates, and then official cruisers.


The gun deck is a thing of the past, and with it the very concept of a frigate disappeared around the end of the 19th century and did not appear until the mid-20th.

But at this time a destroyer appeared.


Small but very nasty ship with self-propelled mines and later torpedoes. And later, destroyers appeared, larger ships, with stronger artillery, whose main task was to sink destroyers, protecting squadrons of large ships from them.


And during the Second World War, frigates appeared again. They were returned by the British, who were forced to come up with a new class of ships to protect the convoys.


The new frigate was not as well armed as the destroyer and was smaller. But this ship was larger than a patrol boat, and could escort transports across the ocean. And his weapons were enough to fight off the German planes, and - most importantly - to drive away the submarines from the convoy, which at that time were a real scourge of God for Great Britain.

It turned out to be an intermediate class between destroyers and patrol boats, in fact - an anti-submarine defense ship.

During the war, the Americans had their own ships, similar in characteristics to British frigates. They were assigned to the subclass of destroyers: DES - Destroyer Escort Ships - escort destroyer.


After the war, they were reclassified as ocean escorts, since before the 1975 reclassification "frigates" were called light missile cruisers built in the size of destroyer squadrons. And then the Americans went over to the British classification system.

Indeed, the British frigate was between the destroyer and the boat, and the American one was between the cruiser and the destroyer. And NATO demanded at least approximate uniformity.

Today, the line between frigate and destroyer is gradually blurring. In general, the destroyer is still slightly larger than the frigate, armed with a bit heavier, possibly faster.

If we take as an example the old destroyer of project 956 "Sarych" and compare it with the frigate of project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov", then the displacement of "Sarych" is more than a frigate, 8 tons versus 000 tons. The speed is also higher for the destroyer, 5 knots versus 400 for the frigate. The range of the ships is about the same, about 33 miles.


Frigate "Admiral Gorshkov"

But in terms of weapons, everything is not so simple.

The artillery armament is stronger on the destroyer. 2 gun mounts AK-130 (4 barrels 130-mm) against one 130-mm mount A-192M.

Anti-aircraft artillery is stronger on a destroyer. 4 x 6 x 30 mm ZAU AK-630 versus 2 x 1 x 30 mm ZAK "Broadsword".

The frigate's anti-aircraft missile armament is better, the Redoubt is definitely better than the Hurricane (this is the naval version of the Buk). The destroyer has more missiles in a salvo, but still the Redoubt is a new generation.

Well, the main armament of the ship is tactical missile. 2 x 4 anti-ship missiles P-270 "Mosquito" at the destroyer against 2 x 8 "Onyx", "Zircon", "Caliber" at the frigate. And in the future, the next models will have 4 x 8, that is, 32 launch cells.

Well, let's be honest - "Mosquito" is outdated for a long time. And even if you replace it with something modern, the frigate still has more "trunks".

The frigate's mine and torpedo armament is also better.

In general, it is clear that today the new frigate is much more efficient than the old destroyer. In addition, frigates are somewhat cheaper, although this has always been the case. This made it possible to stamp frigates like pies.

It is worth looking at the experience of the PRC here. The Chinese significantly spread between two classes of ships. Destroyers of type 052D "Kunming", which form the basis of the naval strike forces, have a displacement of 7500 tons and carry weapon in 64 PU.


Frigates of type 053N3 "Jianwei-2" are much lighter (2500 tons) and carry weapons to a minimum, like normal frigates: 8 launchers for anti-ship missiles and 4 launchers for air defense systems.


Approximately the same weight distribution in Japanese fleet... Only frigates of the "Abukuma" type, of which there are only 6, are even lighter in armament than the Chinese ships. Well, the Japanese destroyers, that "Congo", that "Atago", they are generally related to "Arleigh Burkam".

The difference between the classes, oddly enough, today is beginning to fade. It has already been said on our pages that Arlie Burke is ¾ Ticonderogi, and if you take and put next to the American cruiser a new Chinese destroyer of Project 055, it will become clear that the cruiser is very light (9 tons), or the Chinese destroyer was fed (800 tons). But the cruiser is smaller than the destroyer - it somehow does not fit into the picture.

Roughly the same thing will happen in the class below, where corvettes (for example, the corvettes of the project 20385 of the "Guarding" type) are quite stepping on the heels of the frigates. The same 2 tonnes of displacement, the same 500 cells for launching anti-ship missiles of the type "Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon", the same "Redoubt" as air defense and so on.

And such a corvette can easily pile on another frigate one on one. Or the Iranian "destroyer", if it turns up under the stem.

Excuse me, but where is the difference then?

In an amicable way, there are only two classes of ships in the ocean zone in the world, in addition to aircraft carriers. These are large ships (cruisers, destroyers) and small ones (frigates and corvettes). Roughly speaking, how not to recall the classification of the Soviet fleet, where there were ships of 1 and 2 ranks.

And there are not so many cruisers as such in the world. Seriously though, 2,5 Russian heavy cruisers, 3 missile cruisers and 22 American Ticonderogs are, in general, all cruisers for today. Not so many, and given the more than veteran age of the cruisers, it can be assumed that in 10 years only a few will remain from this detachment.

And the main force (I do not take into account aircraft carriers) in the majority of the world's decent fleets will be the destroyer. Which will not be inferior in its capabilities to cruisers. The same 112 UVPs of the Chinese "Type 055" are not much inferior to the 122 UVPs of Ticonderogi.

In general, the cruisers will go to history, as once their linear relatives left, and then the ships of the line.

The main striking force at sea will continue to be an aircraft carrier and a destroyer that has mutated to the size of a cruiser. And as cover ships and various escort operations (and drive pirates) frigates and corvettes will work, which will obviously also merge into one class.

At least today it becomes very difficult to distinguish a frigate from a corvette. But this is a topic for another conversation.
Author:
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 11 March 2021 05: 15
    +13
    And later, destroyers appeared, larger ships, with stronger artillery, whose main task was to sink destroyers, protecting squadrons of large ships from them.
    But no, it was the task of the counter-destroyers at first, the destroyers had to operate as part of a squadron for the entire radius and regardless of the weather, and therefore they had to be built larger. Well, this is a destroyer in the Russian fleet - a destroyer, and for the Anglo-Saxons it is a destroyer - a destroyer, not a word about mines or squadrons.

    And the author also did not remember about the Soviet large anti-submarine ships, but with the oceanic patrol ships of the KGB, otherwise he would be completely lost in terminology. laughing
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 11 March 2021 05: 53
      +21
      Also a destroyer .... Japanese.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 11 March 2021 05: 58
        +9
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Also a destroyer .... Japanese.

        Don't show it to the author! laughing
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 April 20 2021 20: 38
          0
          There is "Zamvolt" with its almost 15 tons of displacement. There is a Chinese "Type 055" from 12 tons. Under construction so far, but it will be built.

          Reprint of an old article? Already two 055s are in service. hi
      2. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 11 March 2021 06: 07
        -2
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Also a destroyer .... Japanese.

        why did the helicopter carrier become a destroyer? belay
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 11 March 2021 06: 10
          +13
          They have it like a destroyer! hi
          1. Aerodrome
            Aerodrome 11 March 2021 06: 10
            +4
            Quote: Uncle Lee
            They have it like a destroyer! hi

            oh how ... however ... what
            1. Uncle lee
              Uncle lee 11 March 2021 06: 12
              +11
              And he is not alone with them! sad
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 11 March 2021 15: 08
              +15
              This is our destroyer. And they have a Destroyer. That is, anything you want is suitable for this term. And we have some kind of crap. What destroyer? What squadrons, what mines?
              1. Usher
                Usher 11 March 2021 22: 36
                +2
                Quote: mmaxx
                This is our destroyer. And they have a Destroyer. That is, anything you want is suitable for this term. And we have some kind of crap. What destroyer? What squadrons, what mines?

                fiercely plus, yelled notably.
          2. alexmach
            alexmach 11 March 2021 12: 35
            +2
            And at the same time quietly preparing to become an aircraft carrier.
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 11 March 2021 21: 35
              +2
              Quote: alexmach
              And at the same time quietly preparing to become an aircraft carrier.

              He can only carry VTOL, well, and essno turntables. Although ... British non-aircraft carriers with Harrier verticals were the backbone of the squadron that liberated the Falklands. Even such, if you may, an aircraft carrier, the sovereign master of the sea and air, where there is no other aviation close.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 11 March 2021 22: 24
                0
                He can only carry VTOL

                Which have already been ordered for him, and I don’t know, maybe even the deliveries have already begun ... Well, the truth is still the question of what kind of "Destroyer" it is, the Japanese had 2 of them there, one more - the other is smaller, and it seems that they were just going to re-equip more 12 planes.
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 11 March 2021 07: 03
          +5
          For in the concept of the Japanese self-defense forces there is no place for offensive weapons. Because ignorant people do not care that the "destroyer" has a through flight deck and a displacement of 25000 tons. But for those who are in the subject, the Japanese invention is understandable - a substitution of concepts. Let's replace the word "aircraft carrier" with "destroyer" and that's it. And the military is good, and the media will not inflate the stench over the construction of aircraft carriers lol
          By the way, during the Soviet era, this was also practiced - because of the rejection of the Politburo of aircraft carriers due to their offensive capabilities. Only after pushing in the name of the class the word "cruiser" (albeit an aircraft carrier), the sailors began to build full-fledged aircraft carriers. Therefore "Kuzya" is called TAVKR smile
          1. tasha
            tasha 11 March 2021 08: 01
            +13
            By the way, during the Soviet era, this was also practiced - because of the rejection of the Politburo of aircraft carriers due to their offensive capabilities.
            Andrei Nikolaevich, I read that there is another version of the appearance of the name TAVKR - the ban imposed by the Montreux Convention of 1936 on the passage of aircraft carriers through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 11 March 2021 12: 13
              +8
              Quote: tasha
              I read that there is another version of the appearance of the name TAVKR

              And this version is more believable ...
              1. novel66
                novel66 11 March 2021 13: 42
                +1
                and some people confused spruence with ticonderoga lol hello chubby!
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 12 March 2021 10: 23
                  +4
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  and some people confused spruence with ticonderoga

                  Well, a person who is not knowledgeable could confuse ... it's like the Tu-114 and Tu-126!
                  We have the same, on the basis of the hull of pr. 56, in the future, they built missile cruisers ... moreover, on the 56th they changed the artillery, removed one torpedo tube, replaced the GAS, added 4 RBU and now you have a BOD ... go figure it out ! laughing
              2. Silhouette
                Silhouette 12 March 2021 20: 14
                +1
                In fact, our aircraft-carrying ships began to be called cruisers, first TAKRs, and then TAVKRs, due to the fact that their main weapons were cruise missiles, and they carried aviation as a secondary weapon. The Yak-38 was actually attack aircraft intended for storming the coastal strip. Moreover, the TAKR is an aircraft-carrying cruiser, and the TAVKR is an aircraft-carrying one. Feel the difference. When the Montreux convention was being written, there were no aircraft carriers as a class yet.
            2. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 11 March 2021 18: 25
              +2
              I read about this version, that's why I voiced it. hi
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 12 March 2021 10: 24
                +4
                Quote: Rurikovich
                that's why he voiced it

                Приветствуем! hi Right now, we just have to guess ... what was going on in the heads of the members of the Politburo laughing
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 March 2021 12: 03
            +4
            Quote: Rurikovich
            By the way, during the Soviet era, this was also practiced - because of the rejection of the Politburo of aircraft carriers due to their offensive capabilities.

            Not only with us - Royal Navy pushed through the Laborites "Invincibles" under the name "full deck control cruiser"(Through Deck Command Cruiser). For aircraft carrier the navy would not have been allowed to order. smile
          3. mmaxx
            mmaxx 11 March 2021 15: 10
            +3
            TAVKR is another miracle of Russian terminology. I generally keep quiet about the submarine. From their classification you want to up the wall.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 11 March 2021 16: 54
              +3
              Quote: mmaxx
              From their classification you want to up the wall.

              Come on, sweetheart! Don't let it down ... Just take a run faster !!! laughing
              1. mmaxx
                mmaxx 12 March 2021 14: 16
                +2
                I'll run down the hill.
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 12 March 2021 15: 59
                  0
                  Quote: mmaxx
                  I'll run down the hill.

                  A person who is not offended by jokes and teasing is a great rarity!
                  Apparently you are not deprived of a sense of humor. A PLUS !!! drinks
        3. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 March 2021 07: 59
          +7
          This is no longer a very helicopter carrier, a penguin is attached to it.

          As it was announced after the war that ships larger than EMs would not be built, they have been creative ever since. No, well, what about? The destroyers have a helicopter, or even two. And then, well, the hangar was slightly expanded.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 March 2021 12: 24
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            No, well, what about? The destroyers have a helicopter, or even two.

            Three helicopters - this is Japan ("Haru-Haru" and her three sisters smile ).
      3. yehat2
        yehat2 11 March 2021 12: 38
        +5
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Also a destroyer .... Japanese.

        turned over and got a zamvolt
      4. Looking for
        Looking for 11 March 2021 15: 50
        +2
        listen. you fucking expert. learn to distinguish a Helicopter Destroyer (DDH) from a Destroyer (DD)
      5. Revolver
        Revolver 11 March 2021 22: 48
        0
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Also a destroyer .... Japanese.

        If we compare the Japanese attack aircraft carrier Kaga, which died in 1942 at Midway, with its "descendant" the Izumo-class helicopter destroyer Kaga, we get a curious picture:
        Displacement: 38800t 27000t
        Length: 247.65m 248m
        Width: 32.5m 38m
        Those. a new "destroyer" or "helicopter carrier" - whatever you call it, it could well take over the air wing of the old aircraft carrier. And not only accept, but also lift into the air.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 11 March 2021 23: 02
          0
          So he is a full-fledged light aircraft carrier, not a UDC and not a helicopter carrier. And the F-35B fighters were purchased for him.
        2. Aydar Tyutin
          Aydar Tyutin 13 March 2021 21: 02
          0
          You left out the fact that the Kaga and Akagi were converted battleships.
          Their hull, due to the reservation, was much heavier than that of the rest, full-fledged aircraft carriers! It's better to compare with Shokaku here - the difference is even smaller! And if we compare with Hiryu, who did not have such powerful armor as the Heavy Aircraft Carriers (Kaga, Akagi, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Taiho and Shinano (sister ship Yamato and Musashi!), As well as Junyo and Hiyo), then everything becomes more sadder (or more comical).
          In general, this is a really full-fledged aircraft carrier. Well, or a helicopter carrier.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 14 March 2021 02: 28
            0
            It's just that both are called "Kaga", so a comparison begs. And from a purely technical point of view, you are absolutely right. hi
    2. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 11 March 2021 08: 10
      +9
      compare it with the project frigate 22350M "Admiral Gorshkov"
      ?!
      The artillery armament is stronger on the destroyer. 2 gun mounts AK-630 (4 barrels 130-mm) against one 130-mm installation A-192M.
      rather than 130/54 ?!
      .. (for example, project 2038 corvettes5 type "Guarding")
      if through (5), then rather "Thundering" ?!
      The destroyer has more missiles in a salvo, but still "Redoubt" is a new generation.
      not in a volley, and in ammunition , under the beam PU SAM (!)...
      you are the author either "in a hurry" or "often sore" .... ? !!
      "About how many wonderful discoveries we have, is the spirit preparing for enlightenment?"..
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 11 March 2021 12: 15
        +7
        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
        and not 130/54 ?!

        what And a metal cutter of 130 mm would look cool! fellow
        1. novel66
          novel66 11 March 2021 13: 44
          +1
          and the whole hold for shells lol
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 12 March 2021 09: 50
            +2
            Also, the barge is tied behind bully
        2. Irbiz123
          Irbiz123 11 March 2021 13: 51
          +4
          And a metal cutter of 130 mm would look cool!

          The annual budget of Voronezh would take off in 10 seconds a queue repeat
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 12 March 2021 09: 52
            +2
            Quote: Irbiz123
            The annual budget of Voronezh would take off in 10 seconds a queue

            For that, radically, but if you don't get it! wink
        3. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 March 2021 14: 50
          +7
          You are laughing, but I saw a drawing of 57 mm.
          130 you don't even have to build, 57 is enough to go crazy
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 12 March 2021 10: 04
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I saw a drawing of 57 mm.
            130 you don't even have to build, 57 is enough to go crazy

            Shooting the AK-725 with its 400 rounds per minute is something! I was lucky to watch the shooting at a ground target SM-24-ZIF .... like a child, I could not tear myself away from this sight !!!
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 12 March 2021 11: 42
              +1
              So it is with two barrels.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. stannifer
      stannifer 11 March 2021 09: 00
      +9
      ... moreover, "destroyer" comes from "torpedo boat destroyer", or "destroyer of torpedo boats", or mini-boats, so he is a counter-destroyer :)
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 11 March 2021 09: 03
        +1
        Quote: stannifer
        so he is a counter-destroyer

        Live and learn! But the torpedoes were not delivered to the destroyers for that. )
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 11 March 2021 12: 39
          +1
          Live and learn! But the torpedoes were not delivered to the destroyers for that. )

          This is an additional functionality, so the first multifunctional ship in history appeared ... Although, most likely with the first in history, I bent. In recent history, probably. And even the Greek triremes were multifunctional.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 11 March 2021 17: 13
            0
            Quote: alexmach
            the first multifunctional ship in history appeared ...

            Quote: venik
            each country has its own views on the classification of ships (the exception is NATO countries: they are somehow trying to "standardize" everything), and views on the classification of ships tend to evolve over time.

            Well, ours are also not bastard! Nowadays they are increasingly leaning on "universal" ships. True, they have not yet broken away from the traditional classification.
            How do you, for example, THIS: - "Multipurpose corvette ..." Sounds! fellow
            1. Nemchinov Vl
              Nemchinov Vl 11 March 2021 17: 50
              +2
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              How do you, for example, THIS: - "Multipurpose corvette... "Sounds!
              at 20380, - only Multi-purpose PRICE (!), but with the functionality of weapons ...
              Quote: Leader of the Redskins
              Well done, Skomorokhov! Out of the blue, I made an article!
    5. 27091965
      27091965 11 March 2021 09: 36
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      But no, it was the task of the counter-destroyers at first, the destroyers had to operate as part of a squadron for the entire radius and regardless of the weather, and therefore they had to be built larger. Well, this is a destroyer in the Russian fleet - a destroyer, and for the Anglo-Saxons it is a destroyer - a destroyer, not a word about mines or squadrons.


      It is better not to take the classification of ships of individual countries as a basis, we may encounter, in our opinion, strange ship classes. Each country itself was determined with terms, among the British you can find an "armored destroyer"; it did not last long, but it did. We built mine cruisers of the "Ukraine" type, although the project taken as a basis, in the USA where it was developed, was called "torpedo - boat destroyer". I think it's better to use the generally accepted classification.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 11 March 2021 09: 38
        +1
        Quote: 27091965i
        I think it's better to use the generally accepted classification.

        I agree, but I will add: the generally accepted domestic classification ...
        1. 27091965
          27091965 11 March 2021 10: 55
          +1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          I agree, but I will add: the generally accepted domestic classification.

          good
    6. venik
      venik 11 March 2021 15: 11
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And the author also did not remember about the Soviet large anti-submarine ships, but with the oceanic patrol ships of the KGB, otherwise he would be completely lost in terminology.

      ========
      So he and so - "swam"! The only thing that is beyond doubt in the article is that each country has its own views on the classification of ships (with the exception of NATO countries: they are somehow trying to "standardize" everything), and views on the classification of ships tend to evolve over time ...
      And the rest of Roman - "blooper" on "blooper" sits and "blooper" drives! Counter-destroyers - confused with destroyers, project 22350M - confused with 22350, frigates called "an intermediate link between destroyers and boats", and I somehow forgot about the corvettes, about the BOD too .....
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 11 March 2021 23: 29
        +1
        Quote: venik
        And the rest of Roman - "blooper" on "blooper" sits and "blooper" drives!

        Well, not a seaman is a man - what is really here ... repeat
  2. Doccor18
    Doccor18 11 March 2021 06: 48
    +6
    In my opinion, everything is clear. Destroyers are ships of the ocean zone, ships for real sea giants.
    Frigates are when you really want to go to sea, but you don't have enough funds ..., as well as ships for secondary tasks in the near and far sea zones.
    Frigates of type 053H3 "Jianwei-2"

    Destroyers 052D would be more logical to compare with the main project of the frigate of the PRC Navy "054-Jiankai" ...
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 11 March 2021 07: 35
      +11
      Well done, Skomorokhov! Out of the blue, I made an article!
      Now, as I understand it, you need to wait for the cycle:
      The difference between a frigate and a corvette, the difference between a boat and a longboat, the difference between a whale and an elephant, and so on ...
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 11 March 2021 08: 11
        +3
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins

        Now, as I understand it, you need to wait for the cycle:
        The difference between a frigate and a corvette, the difference between a boat and a longboat, the difference between a whale and an elephant, and so on ...

        good laughing
      2. Alien From
        Alien From 11 March 2021 10: 50
        +3
        So horses, people and tools were mixed)))
      3. Artemion3
        Artemion3 11 March 2021 11: 25
        +3
        In my opinion, a very interesting article, for beginners like me
        1. venik
          venik 11 March 2021 15: 15
          +6
          Quote: Artemion3
          In my opinion, a very interesting article, for beginners like me

          =======
          Just a beginner, then this "opus" and is able to confuse in three pines! And finally and irrevocably!
    2. Avior
      Avior 11 March 2021 08: 33
      +4
      ... Frigates are when you really want to go to sea, but you don't have enough funds

      How to say
      Oliver Perry against I think
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 11 March 2021 08: 39
        +6
        Quote: Avior
        ... Frigates are when you really want to go to sea, but you don't have enough funds

        How to say
        Oliver Perry against I think

        Why against?
        If it were financially possible to build 100 Spruence and 100 Ticonderogs, then Perry would not have appeared.
        Inexpensive and massive air defense platform ...
        1. Avior
          Avior 11 March 2021 08: 41
          +4
          Not the poorest country
          If there was a need, find a quick means
          And since the problem can be solved cheaper, why pay more?
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 11 March 2021 08: 47
            +5
            Quote: Avior
            Not the poorest country

            Not the most.
            But far from omnipotent ...
            Quote: Avior
            And since the problem can be solved cheaper, why pay more?

            This is yes.
            However, Perry does not pull the role of a good air defense / anti-aircraft defense fighter. Its only advantage is its technological simplicity (mass character) and cost. Savings ...
            1. Avior
              Avior 11 March 2021 08: 48
              +5
              And they did not prepare the champion, but for the SAO tasks - a massive escort of convoys across the Atlantic Ocean
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 11 March 2021 09: 04
                +2
                What a champion ...
                One gets the impression that these frigates were built with only one purpose - "presence". The ships of the "world gendarme" should be everywhere and there should be a lot of them. But even the Pentagon did not have enough money for "such an appetite for sailors." Therefore, such controversial ships appeared ...
                1. Avior
                  Avior 11 March 2021 09: 45
                  +10
                  these were specifically built primarily for Atlantic convoys in case of war.
                  And they were unsuitable, for example, to support the landing.
                  And for the rest, they completely met their functions - cheap, a lot and with acceptable characteristics - even if the boat was let up, it would not allow the entire convoy to be flooded when the boat gave out itself by an attack, and the actions of the boats would bind and complicate, and then the time factor was important - cargo and troops should have reached Europe before the Soviet hordes wash their boots at the Deauville resort on the English Channel smile
                  Again, the frigate's PLO is two helicopters, quite on the level. And about the air defense - Large Soviet air raids in the Atlantic were not expected.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 11 March 2021 12: 30
                    +1
                    Quote: Avior
                    Again, the frigate's PLO is two helicopters, quite on the level. And about the air defense - Large Soviet air raids in the Atlantic were not expected.

                    Nevertheless, the "long arm" of the air defense (single-girder launcher "Standards") was installed on the OHP. Moreover, at the price of PU PLUR, which are not available at the OCP.
                    We got a budget station wagon - and the submarine can, at the very least, drive, and fight off a pair of WB anti-ship missiles that somehow leaked out.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 11 March 2021 14: 54
                      +1
                      If it were done now, it is clear that the UVP was installed, and it would be much better with air defense
                      The Turks did just that - they added uvp cells under the essm and provided near-medium air defense.
                      And the distant one remained behind the one-armed
                  2. dauria
                    dauria 11 March 2021 17: 22
                    +3
                    these were specifically built primarily for Atlantic convoys in case of war.


                    Not a special, but a frigate as a class in World War II took over the functions of a Flower-class corvette. A small boat, which the British consider their 34th. Cheap, with CMU, the usual "fisherman" is taken as a basis. The speed is equal to the speed of the submarine on the surface (16-17 knots), radar and sonar, depth charges and a single 100 mm cannon. Machine guns and MZA to fight off the aircraft (weak, but hopeful).
                    Enough to drive the boat under water even at night and make it crawl quietly at 2 knots. That was enough. A boat under water is not dangerous for a convoy, unless it is miraculously in front of it.
                    But Flower was small, the conditions of the crew were bestial, and in a storm they were simply dangerous. So frigates appeared - everything is the same, but a little more for seaworthiness.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 11 March 2021 18: 20
                      +1
                      Quote: dauria
                      Not a special, but a frigate as a class in World War II took over the functions of a Flower-class corvette. A small boat, which the British consider their 34th. Cheap, with CMU, the usual "fisherman" is taken as a basis

                      As he wrote on the VIF uv. Exeter, the cost of three "flowers" was approximately equal to one PL-"seven". So these locusts were really cheap.
                    2. Avior
                      Avior 11 March 2021 19: 05
                      0
                      I think that it is more correct to consider the predecessors not Flower, but River class frigates - twice as large as corvettes, with 2 guns, significantly strengthened MZA, and derivatives from them that appeared during the war among the Americans and the British - Tacoma, Loch.
                      Like Flower, they are technologically advanced, cheap, but larger and better armed.
        2. Constanty
          Constanty 11 March 2021 18: 42
          0
          Inexpensive and massive air defense platform ...


          Very expensive to maintain, operate and repair.
          This is such a "Trojan horse" - in Poland something is known about it - unfortunately, they ordered to take it away and the authorities even thanked sad
  3. Yuriy71
    Yuriy71 11 March 2021 07: 02
    +12
    Explain someone to the Author that the speed does not depend on the class of the Ship (frigate or destroyer), but on the Propulsion system that was supplied and that the Manufacturer had))))
  4. Koval Sergey
    Koval Sergey 11 March 2021 07: 02
    +26
    Chinese "Type 055" with 12 tons. It is being built so far, but it will be built

    Already built
    Chinese Navy has replenished with the second newest destroyer of Project 055
    https://topwar.ru/180664-vms-kitaja-popolnilis-vtorym-novejshim-jesmincem-proekta-055.html
  5. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 11 March 2021 07: 42
    -7
    because of the cumbersomeness (and therefore inefficiency), battleships are gone, cruisers are leaving, destroyers are next .. the future belongs to ships of about 3000 tons, optimally in seaworthiness and minimal in size, as the ingenious Makarov wrote a hundred years ago ... but stupid supporters of surface monsters together with the sawmills from the ship industry, they are trying to increase the displacement all the time ... they are afraid of pitching .. and pride over the edge ... just how stupid you need to be to make a tank not included in the railroad gauge? but the Germans managed to do it! think how stupid it is to make for closed seas, black and Baltic ships that do not fit into inland waterways? despite the fact that their tasks are quite capable of the forces of the IPC and MRK, and in the north of Kamchatka there are almost no ships at all ... they chill out on the warm sea = at sea they are suicide bombers, while ... truly the depth of human stupidity of pride and meanness (now they minus ) exceeds the Mariana Trench
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 11 March 2021 09: 21
      +9
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the future belongs to ships of about 3000 tons, optimally in terms of seaworthiness ... but stupid supporters of surface monsters ...

      The battleships left due to their inability to resist aviation. Reliable air defense systems did not exist, yes ... there are almost none of them now.
      The difference between cruisers and destroyers has almost disappeared. Politics rules. They do not want to "frighten" each other once again. The Chinese 055 and "US iron" are actually both cruisers. But they are stubbornly called destroyers.
      And what about the "optimal" seaworthiness of 3-thousanders, it sounds like a ridiculous joke. Have you tried to pass the La Perouse Strait in late October and early November? Of course not. Otherwise they would not have written this.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 11 March 2021 15: 15
      +1
      Adm. Makarov foresaw everything: missiles, helicopters, airplanes ...
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 March 2021 17: 34
      +2
      Quote: vladimir1155
      but stupid supporters of surface monsters are trying, together with sawmakers from the ship industry, to increase the displacement all the time ... they are afraid of pitching ... and pride over the edge ...

      Who were you on 1155, if you don't hesitate to sculpt such crap !?
      1. The ship is a weapon carrier. He needs to be delivered to the line of application, against a specific enemy who also wants to drown you ... We need a supply of buoyancy and unsinkability ...
      Then autonomy - supplies of fuel, water, food.
      Crew - habitability, minimum amenities die, but ensure ...
      The displacement also depends on this.
      2. Pitching, pitching ... If you are afraid of pitching, go swimming!
      3. If there is something to be proud of, then why not !?
      So the free tip is:
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 11 March 2021 22: 17
        -3
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        1. The ship is a weapon carrier. He needs to be delivered to the line of application, against a specific enemy who also wants to drown you ... We need a supply of buoyancy and unsinkability ...
        Then autonomy - supplies of fuel, water, food.
        Crew - habitability, minimum amenities die, but ensure ...

        write nonsense and do not notice why all your words if your ship is slow-moving and noticeable? they will sink it with all your supplies, .. and in general, supply transports should be provided for supplies, and if your shoulder is no more than a thousand miles (that is, an umbrella of coastal aviation), then not a lot of supplies are needed ... team? cabins? on a small ship, of course, it is closer, you need to swim at least once to know what tightness is, ... in general, your empty words, because you are noticeable and slow-moving! does it really matter what you have and how many stores and cabins if you sink from the first mine and the third missile, at the bottom you will not need any supplies or cabins. Only stealthy (PL) and fast (coastal aviation) can survive in modern combat
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 11 March 2021 22: 34
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          you write nonsense and don't notice

          So I tell you about it! yes
          You wrote about inflating VI and sawing the dough ...
          About the fear of pitching ... and some kind of pride for it (?)
          When they explain to you that VI does not grow by itself, but because there are weight and overall dimensions of weapons and combat systems,
          You are talking nonsense about some kind of transport shoulder ... You are sending me back to the boat to serve, about the cabins and the cramped space ...
        2. Usher
          Usher 11 March 2021 22: 42
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          1. The ship is a weapon carrier. He needs to be delivered to the line of application, against a specific enemy who also wants to drown you ... We need a supply of buoyancy and unsinkability ...
          Then autonomy - supplies of fuel, water, food.
          Crew - habitability, minimum amenities die, but ensure ...

          write nonsense and do not notice why all your words if your ship is slow-moving and noticeable? they will sink it with all your supplies, .. and in general, supply transports should be provided for supplies, and if your shoulder is no more than a thousand miles (that is, an umbrella of coastal aviation), then not a lot of supplies are needed ... team? cabins? on a small ship, of course, it is closer, you need to swim at least once to know what tightness is, ... in general, your empty words, because you are noticeable and slow-moving! does it really matter what you have and how many stores and cabins if you sink from the first mine and the third missile, at the bottom you will not need any supplies or cabins. Only stealthy (PL) and fast (coastal aviation) can survive in modern combat

          Are you serious? Not honestly, are you seriously writing this nonsense?
      2. ANB
        ANB 11 March 2021 23: 15
        0
        ... If you are afraid of pitching, go swimming!

        On the bdr, too, in a storm shakes. So you don’t need to submarine :) Especially considering that you can’t go overboard on a submarine.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 11 March 2021 23: 32
          +3
          Quote: ANB
          On the bdr, too, in a storm shakes.

          No need to hang from the periscope!
          The swaying is felt only to a depth equal to the length of the storm wave ...
          The session of communication and observation ended - you dive ... and the chatter ended. The most unpleasant thing is after surfacing in the OP near the "Yako" buoy and following to the base after being identified with the ship by the escort ... in fresh weather. But for someone to complain from the strategists about the pitching - this is the first time ... Apparently at the Pacific Fleet the wave is longer than the northern one laughing
          1. ANB
            ANB 11 March 2021 23: 57
            +1
            ... But for someone to complain from the strategists about the pitching - this is the first time ... Apparently at the Pacific Fleet the wave is longer than the northern one laughing

            The commander of Bch5 forbade diving more than 30 meters. I went to bed, I was on watch at 101 in the central one (well, in fact, at the tablet). Kbch2 remained for the senior. It rocked brutally. Although on Khasan in the North Sea it swayed harder. The people persuaded kbch2 to dive 60 meters. The pitching is over. After 15 minutes a mechanic came running, blew everyone in and made them float up. The oil seals are leaking. Well, rolling again.
  6. Potter
    Potter 11 March 2021 08: 07
    +4
    The difference in size, displacement and armament of destroyers has been traced before. While in Russia they were building Noviks with a total displacement of 1500-1800 tons with long-range 102-mm cannons, very close by the modest Swedes were building turbine destroyers in 450 tons of displacement with 75-mm "pukals". But I agree with Roman that now with this classification a destroyer - a frigate is a complete mess.
  7. Avior
    Avior 11 March 2021 08: 30
    +3
    If you do not take special cases, such as Japanese and Iranian "destroyers", then large frigates and destroyers differ rather in the composition of their weapons, including electronic ones, than in the size of the hull, which is clearly visible on the frigates of the Horizon type and the destroyers of the type 45.
    A similar situation - large corvettes came close to small frigates, the composition of the corvettes' armament grew after the spread of the UVP and the reduction in the size of the electronics.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 March 2021 08: 47
      +6
      Here you can put it not very strictly, but quite clearly.

      EM is a versatile combat ship, like the WWII cruiser, the EM standard is Burke. If when building a ship they dance "from Burke" - this is EM.

      A frigate is a ship, quite possibly a large one, of the oceanic zone, which does not try to compete with Burke, but solves a narrower - and different ships have different - range of tasks. PLO, air defense of formations, protection of convoys, anti-piracy actions, etc. As a rule - for more moderate money.
  8. Niko
    Niko 11 March 2021 09: 07
    +10
    It seems to me that the editorial staff of Roman's article aims to cause revival among those who read and comment, well, really, only someone who does not know anything about the fleet will not notice the bloopers in EVERY article (which is, for example, the assertion that the frigate became intermediate between the destroyer and the BOAT)
    1. AlexSub
      AlexSub 11 March 2021 11: 06
      +2
      Quote: Niko
      It seems to me that the editorial staff of Roman's article aims to cause revival among those who read and comment, well, really, only someone who does not know anything about the fleet will not notice the bloopers in EVERY article (which is, for example, the assertion that the frigate became intermediate between the destroyer and the BOAT)


      I also did not understand what he wanted to say)
  9. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 11 March 2021 09: 43
    +2
    with self-propelled mines, and later torpedoes

    And what, excuse me, is the difference?
    1. novel66
      novel66 11 March 2021 13: 47
      +1
      And what, excuse me, is the difference?

      but don't be here! lol
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 March 2021 17: 43
      +2
      Self-propelled mines. This is how the first torpedoes were called at the dawn of TO. Now Self-Propelled Means have turned into self-transporting mines, which are fired like torpedoes from a submarine TA, according to the program they cover the distance, sometimes with a turn on the course and peacefully at the FVK (communications center, at the exit from the PB, port ...) lie on the ground in anticipation your boat ... There are devices of urgency, multiplicity, there are smart fuses - with a duty channel, combat and other crap embedded in the software of the instrument part of the product. Many with a digital computer on board ... A very effective thing: secretive, intelligent, selective, sometimes remotely controlled. But also dear - of course!
      Torpedoes. The best way to read about them is from Mina's website. You can learn a lot of interesting and informative things on occasion.
      Good luck.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. AlexSub
    AlexSub 11 March 2021 10: 56
    +4
    What is the main point of the article?
    That each country has its own classification?

    Well, congratulations! Eureka...)))
  12. dzvero
    dzvero 11 March 2021 11: 31
    +3
    The PMSM was inconsistent in classification at all times, especially when the key features of the ships changed, in particular the type of propulsion unit and the nature of the weapons. The extreme more or less generally accepted classification took place in the 1th century and concerned the sailing fleet - the number of masts and the number of gun decks. The names of the main types of ships have migrated to our time, but the inconsistency was outlined with the transition to steam engines, artillery tower arrangement and booking. And it turned into a modern chaos after WWII when artillery gave way to missiles and new threats appeared - submarines and aviation. The new classification is most logical to do based on 2) displacement; 3) the nature of the weapon; XNUMX) the type of task.
    1. Artem76
      Artem76 11 March 2021 12: 16
      +1
      Also of the same opinion. Although discord, perhaps to confuse everyone))), Like the Japanese with their destroyer-aircraft carrier ..
  13. EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 March 2021 11: 48
    0
    In English, a destroyer is "destroyer". That is, there is no matching of terms. As for a fighter who is a stupid fighter
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 11 March 2021 23: 38
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      In English the destroyer will be "destroyer"

      Not just a "destroyer", but specifically - torpedo boats. Then they reduced it to one word.
  14. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 11 March 2021 11: 58
    +4
    The difference between the classes, oddly enough, today is beginning to fade. It has already been said on our pages that Arlie Burke is ¾ Ticonderogi, and if you take and put next to the American cruiser a new Chinese destroyer of Project 055, it will become clear that the cruiser is very light (9 tons), or the Chinese destroyer was fed (800 tons).

    Comparison of EM URO with "Ticonderoga" is incorrect - because "Tika" was originally an EM URO. She was reclassified into the URO CD in order to reassure the admirals, who were outraged that new cruisers were not being laid for the USN.
    And in fact, "Tika" is a slightly grown-up "Spruence" with "Aegis". smile
    We had the same "cruiser by name, destroyer according to the project" - RKR pr. 58. with its 4340 tons of standard displacement.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 11 March 2021 14: 22
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      reclassified in the CD URO in order to reassure the admirals, who were outraged that new cruisers were not being laid for the USN ...
      We had the same "cruiser by name, destroyer by design" - RRC pr. 58 ...

      There it was not even a matter of admirals or displacement. After the commissioning of such ships, it turned out that in their capabilities they actually significantly surpass all projects of existing destroyers (Ticonderoga), or have unprecedented strike capabilities (58-Grozny). It was necessary to single them out, so they were "called" cruisers, to the great delight of the crews of these ships ...
  15. mvg
    mvg 11 March 2021 12: 11
    +1
    What nonsense I haven't read ... just stitches ...
  16. Artem76
    Artem76 11 March 2021 12: 14
    +1
    In nautical terminology, you will break your head (may the sailors forgive me). Why call a ship carrying mainly missile weapons - a destroyer, because it is a destroyer, whose task is to lay sea mines? Is this a tribute to tradition or what? Under the USSR, there was a qualification in tasks - BOD, MPK, TARK, etc. Isn't it easier to classify warships by purpose / armament (main)?
    1. novel66
      novel66 11 March 2021 13: 47
      0
      extremely logical!
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 11 March 2021 14: 31
      +1
      Quote: Artyom76
      Under the USSR, there was a qualification in tasks - BOD, MPK, TARK, etc. Isn't it easier to classify warships by purpose / armament (main)?

      Now even developed and non-poor states can barely cope with the construction of a small series of frigates / destroyers, which are trying to make them multipurpose to the maximum. If one of the possibilities is significantly superior to the others, then they add: an air defense frigate (Franco-Italian Horizon). However, the era of highly specialized ships has passed. The cost put a bold cross on them.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 March 2021 14: 35
      +2
      Quote: Artyom76
      Why call a ship carrying mostly missile weapons - a destroyer, after all, this is a destroyer whose task is to lay sea mines?

      Not setting, but starting min. Destroyer is a term from the times when a torpedo was called a self-propelled mine. So a mine boat, a destroyer, a destroyer and a destroyer are carriers of "active" mine weapons (pole, towed, throwing and self-propelled mines).
    4. abc_alex
      abc_alex 11 March 2021 18: 41
      0
      Quote: Artyom76
      In nautical terminology, you will break your head (may the sailors forgive me). Why call a ship carrying mainly missile weapons - a destroyer, because it is a destroyer, whose task is to lay sea mines? Is this a tribute to tradition or what? Under the USSR, there was a qualification in tasks - BOD, MPK, TARK, etc. Isn't it easier to classify warships by purpose / armament (main)?


      As I understand it, yes, this is from history. When the destroyers emerged, the main weapon of the ship was cannons. Therefore, the ship, whose main weapon was torpedoes (self-propelled, and before that pole mines), had to be brought into a separate class, because by the standards of that time they were unarmed. Torpedo boats and destroyers did not lay minefields, they were torpedo bombers, it was just that torpedoes were not called that.
      The destroyer is minonoseetfit for esframe combat (wall to wall as part of a squadron) over the entire range of action of large artillery ships. This is still the same torpedo bomber, but larger, more armored, more seaworthy, armed with a cannon to fight destroyers.

      Modern destroyers are also not artillery ships, only their "main caliber" is not torpedo, but missile.

      I agree with you, in my opinion, the Soviet classification was more logical, clearer and more systematic. But our admirals in the 90s, it seems, powerfully blew off the roof, so they "joined the naval tradition" ...

      The only thing that now at least somehow explains what class is, this is the maritime zone of action. Some are at the coast, some a little further, some in the open sea.
  17. Undecim
    Undecim 11 March 2021 14: 25
    +4
    It is enough to remember where it came from in general. From the French, who invented this small but nimble ship with one (later two) gun deck to fight pirates.
    The launch of fakes into the information space for the authors of the VO site is already becoming a tradition and acquires a competitive character. This small but nimble ship was invented by the Dunker corsairs during the Eighty Years War.
  18. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 11 March 2021 14: 41
    +1
    It is strange that the author did not compare the radio-technical armament (RTV) of the ships' armament. This comparison will not be in favor of frigates and corvettes. The main task of modern destroyers (in foreign navies) is air defense and missile defense of ships' connections. Therefore, they are equipped with AEGIS, radar with AFAR on all four sides, electronic warfare systems. Frigates, even with a displacement close to the EM, are equipped with RTV more poorly, air defense is usually in the near zone, but their task is an anti-aircraft missile, at least for foreigners. Therefore, they have 2 helicopters, a powerful sonar complex with towed and under-keel antennas, and no one plans to put tomahawks on them, because strikes on the shore are only an option, and not one of the main tasks.
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 March 2021 15: 26
      0
      Compare the Fremm frigates and the Type 45 destroyers.
      Air defense is the same

      The electronics on the destroyer is better, but on the scalp frigate is the naval
  19. Mark kalendarov
    Mark kalendarov 11 March 2021 15: 05
    +2
    "But in practice, there is a global naval mess."
    I love capacious, comprehensive definitions !!!
    Thank. All the best!
  20. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 11 March 2021 17: 04
    0
    The first misunderstandings with the classification arose back in 1975, when the atomic frigate Bainbridge entered service. True, the mattress officers realized that they were "excited" and quickly made him into a light cruiser, bypassing the class of destroyers.
  21. Kushka
    Kushka 11 March 2021 19: 16
    +5
    The difference between a frigate and a corvette, the difference between a boat and a longboat, the difference between a whale and an elephant, and so on ...
    [i] [/ i]
    - What is the difference between the Eiffel Tower and the Zhiguli?
    -The Eiffel Tower is high, and the Zhiguli are green!
    -What do they have in common?
    -Both of them can not shave!
  22. hostel
    hostel 13 March 2021 14: 30
    +1
    If a destroyer has mutated into a cruiser in terms of displacement, ammunition, and weapons, then this is not a destroyer, but a full-fledged cruiser.
  23. Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 15 March 2021 22: 48
    0
    Ticonderoga is not a cruiser and never was (regardless of the official classification). And to rule the seas (if, as the author suggests, to forget about aircraft carriers) will be all the same cruisers, simply called destroyers. Whoever says anything, but only Zamwalt, no matter how you look, is never a destroyer, then the 52nd, then the Leader (if there is one).
  24. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 16 March 2021 09: 32
    0
    2 gun mounts AK-630 (4 barrels 130-mm) .... cool)))))
  25. Pavel57
    Pavel57 19 March 2021 10: 01
    0
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    Also a destroyer .... Japanese.


    There were not aircraft carriers, but aircraft-carrying cruisers.
  26. Eug
    Eug 19 March 2021 14: 52
    0
    As for me, on the destroyer, to the same air defense systems that are on the frigate, a long-range collective defense air defense system with a radar of an increased area and, accordingly, an increased number of anti-aircraft guns, raised to how much greater a height - this is in air defense, is added. The same number of ZRAK close defense increases in proportion to the increase in the deck area (conventionally - 1 ZRAK per 50 square meters of deck). In PLO - three helicopters instead of two at the frigate, increased ammunition with the same sonars. In anti-ship weapons - again, an increased number of launch cells with anti-ship missiles. In this way, we will get the maximum possible unification of weapons and all the buns from this.
  27. Eug
    Eug 19 March 2021 17: 06
    0
    And according to armament - on the frigate 1x130, the destroyer -2x130 (two single-gun, with separate aiming at the target, not a "double-barreled gun").
  28. Escobar
    Escobar 19 March 2021 19: 48
    0
    As far as I remember, on the new frigates there are 3 * 8 pu calibers, not 4 * 8
  29. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter April 15 2021 21: 49
    0
    "The speed is also higher for the destroyer, 33 knots versus 29 for the frigate."
    Wow...
    I already thought in a large shipbuilding such speeds are not considered anymore.
    You look ... 22-26 on the strength. Usually.
  30. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 2 May 2021 17: 19
    0
    The destroyer advantageously wins in beauty and size over the frigate. Judging by the photo.
    Therefore, I am categorically for the destroyer.
    He has more sections.
    Better yet, a cruiser / aircraft carrier, which thread.
    There is a pre-assembly - just some kind of holiday!
    One misfortune, the truth, immediately darkened my joy ...
    On our SZ - no more corvette can be built. repeat
    And to make money, I need a series.
    Pieces six / eight. Better- sixty / eighty repeat