Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 July 7

= July 7 =

Naval warship classification
During the Age of Sail, the term frigate usually denoted a light warship that favored speed and maneuverability over firepower. An example of this is the USS Constitution. The Constitution has only one gun deck, indicating that it is in fact a frigate, as opposed to a Ship of the line, which traditionally would have up to three gun decks. An example of that would be the HMS Victory.

However, modern ships are not rated by the number of gun decks, as ships don't have gun decks, nor do they have guns designed to engage other ships and aircraft with in the first place. Modern warships, whether cruisers, frigates, or destroyers all use guided missiles as the primary weapon. My question is, in the absence of gun decks, what determines the class of a ship? Aircraft carriers, hospital ships, and submarines are an exception, as their designation is due to a specific role or design. However, what distinguishes between cruisers, frigates, and destroyers? To me, they all just seem like warships with missiles. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 18:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * One parameter is just the size of the vessel, often measured in gross tonnage or related measures. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A cruiser is larger and more capable than a destroyer and a destroyer is larger and more capable than a frigate. Even into the 1950s, these ships had clearly defined roles, frigates for example, were designed mainly to protect merchant ships from submarine attack, but these distinctions have become somewhat blurred. The comparison between modern frigates and sailing frigates is not really valid, the original frigates morphed into steam cruisers in the 1870s; the name was resurrected in 1941 for the River-class frigates which were originally described as a "twin-screw corvettes", but the name "frigate" was suggested by Vice-Admiral Percy Nelles of the Royal Canadian Navy. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While the general statement is correct, politics and propaganda also play a role in naming ships - cruisers may be classified as destroyers if only destroyers are authorised in the budget, and destroyers may become cruisers if the navy wants to appear stronger. During the United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification, many former US frigates were promoted to cruisers (unlike essentially everybody else, the US used the term frigate for ships that were typically larger than destroyers, not smaller). And in 1980, the Ticonderogas were upgraded from destroyer to cruiser. This closed a perceived "cruiser gap", and also brought US designations more in line with those of other navies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's curious to see that over the course of the 20th century, in the United States navy, the difference in size between destroyers and cruisers gradually diminished until they were approximately the same. I think the two categories tend to maintain a distinction rooted in their historical roles. That is, the purpose of a cruiser is to engage other surface warships and land targets, while the purpose of a destroyer is to guard a fleet from things that aren't warships (originally torpedo boats, as with the torpedo boat destroyers described in Destroyer, and later expanding to submarines and aerial threats). The modern US concept of "frigate" evolved from the older destroyer escort (which the British were already calling frigates, incidentally, going with what Alan mentions), which was essentially filling the role of destroyer but for merchant convoys instead of naval fleets. Though this still meant guarding other vessels from submarines, aircraft and small boats, the role was distinct in that the ships only had to be as fast as the convoy, which tended to be significantly slower than contemporary large warships. Of course, Stephan is also right, and sometimes ships are placed in categories for other reasons. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An example of political renaming was the Invincible-class aircraft carriers, which were originally called "Through-Deck Command Cruisers" because the decision had been taken that the Royal Navy wouldn't build any more aircraft carriers. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Naval gunnery is not a lost art. Most ship have antiaircraft guns, for instance the Phalanx CIWS (New, Improved. Up to 75 rounds per second now!) Naval gunfire support has been used for shore bombardment in the 1980s in the Falklands and Lebanon and in the 1990s and 2000s in Iraq. Rmhermen (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Phalanx article states it is an automted system with human oversight. One can hardly call that gunnery, no? But anyway, the US navy saw future in naval gunnery, or specifically much longer range support fire with the Zumwalt-class destroyer and its Advanced Gun System. From what i gathered from the article it was supposed to replace the long range support capability of the Iowa. But as the munitions were cancelled for being too expensive, nearly as much as a Tomahawk per round, those guns are totally useless now. But what the Zumwalt-class article also states is that the 3rd and last ship of its class, currently fitting out, is considered for a railgun because it would be capable of producing the needed electricity and has the space where the now useless 155mm guns are. No idea how up to date the article is in that regard though. There certainly seems to be no desire by navies to do away with naval guns, probably for good reason. So many modern warships are multi-mission anyway, same as was with modern 'fighter' aircraft really, and while doctrines surely do make a difference in classification and use, overall most modern warship types should be capable to fulfill many mission types due to carrying helicopters with different capabilities, long range missile systems, deck guns, advanced radar/sonar, anti-air and so many more systems(if that is desired by any given navy of course, does not have to be). No matter if it is called a cruiser or destroyer. They all carry similar weapons systems anyway, perhaps just more of a certain type depending on classification and doctrine. 37.138.75.181 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the 1970s, the Royal Navy began building their Type 22 frigates without a main gun; however, experience in the 1982 Falklands War showed the value of naval gunfire support and all frigates and destroyers since then have mounted a single 4.5-inch gun. In Operation Paraquet, the recapture of South Georgia Island from Argentine military control in April 1982, a demonstration barrage from two British warships on a nearby hillside induced the Argentinian garrison to surrender without another shot being fired or any casualties. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * One possible advantage of naval guns is that they could be made to survive an EMP better than guided missiles, which require electronics to work. A gun shouldn't, unless they put electronic firing controls on it with no option to operate it manually. And even if they did, they could heavily shield it, since the extra weight and bulk wouldn't matter as much there as in a missile. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The main advantage of classical guns should be that the ammunition is dumb and hence dirt-cheap. Which is why the Advanced Gun System with its ca. US$1000000 per "shell" was such a great idea. Even if you achieve a kill on every shot: How many targets in modern asymmetric warfare are worth that much? And to use the full MRSI capability, you're out 10 million.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * For those curious as to how it can be that expensive, those guided shells are only used in the Zumwalt-class destroyers, and they cut production of those ships from 32 to 3, which means the manufacturer would need to divide the fixed costs of setting up production among very few shells. A textbook example of how not to do things. What we need is the opposite, standardized shells that work in a wide range of guns, land and naval, and perhaps even air-launched. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue surely was the limited capability compared to other systems like the Tomahawk in connection to the price per unit as well. By that i mean that the AGS with its special munitions, while perhaps capable of pin point accuracy, has a range of 'only' about 190km to 140km depending on the source. The Tomahawk variants for example offer between 1300km to 2500km range for a somewhat comparable price. Not to mention all the other ways to deliver accurate fire support or destroy strategic targets nowadays. I guess other technology just overtook the original idea by such a huge margin over the course of developement that it was just not worth the money anymore in the end. Keep in mind that the project in its original form was launched in 1996. 37.138.75.181 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)