Greetings, /k/ucks, envoy from /his/ here. Is there still any

>>32091706
Corvettes are better

Frigates are smaller and cheaper than destroyers and have much less missiles
They exists to escort carriers after the navy runs low on money from building carriers.
Destroyers are all around vessels that carry a good amount of missiles and can do anything
Cruisers were meant to carry a shit ton of missiles and do everything else a destroyer does

Cruisers and frigates are being phased out because they don't serve a role that destroyers can't do just as well. We've never needed more missiles than a destroyer can carry.

Used to be that they would have different anti-sub capabilities but then they were all refitted with tow behind sonar systems.

File: 1031350541.jpg (147KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1000x541px

>>32091706

>Is there still any difference in the roles of Cruisers, Destroyers, and Frigates nowadays?

>Cruisers

Nowadays, the term "Cruiser" is rarely used except when talking about abnormally large surface combatants like the Kirov battlecruisers. The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were planned as a class of destroyer, but were re-designated as cruisers purely for political reasons. In terms of function, they are essentially identical to the Arleigh Burkes class destroyers, except that they hold more missiles and have large command facilities.

Frigates are smaller warships design to supplement destroyers/cruiser in particular roles. Whereas larger warships are general-purpose vessels usually, Frigates tended to be more heavily optimized towards a particular task. This is a natural result of having a smaller vessel with less room to carry extra equipment. For example, the Oliver Perry Hazard frigate-class was created specifically to act as escorts for auxiliary vessels. In particular, their design was optimized towards anti-submarine warfare because the Soviet fleet was very submarine-focused and so auxiliary ships would need to be protected during a war.

However, for some navies, "frigate" is actually their largest surface combatant, and in those cases, the Frigates tended to look a lot like scaled down multi-purpose destroyers rather than specialized vessels. Sad but true.

>>32091852
>NEED

>>32091706
>>32091971
Functionally, they are identical. With regards to the Ticonderoga-class, the other anon was more or less correct, the political reasons he alluded to was the "Cruiser Gap", if you're familiar. In practice, immediately after the renaming, the main differences between CGs (Only the Ticonderoga-class) and DDGs (Spruance at this time) were that the cruisers were equipped with the Aegis system, and that the Ticonderogas have two 5" guns, rather than the one carried by any of the DDG classes.
In practice, as I understand it, the difference doctrine-wise is that CGs are used as carrier-escorts above all else, while destroyers, and their higher numbers are meant to do the more classical "Cruiser" roles, like bullying Somali pirates, parking off the coast of Libya when they talk shit, playing bumper boats with Russians, etc.
In short, it's a difference in intended role, with minor differences in design (Ticonderogas have provisions for embarking admirals, which supports it's carrier-escort role) to support their purpose.

>>32091706

Nope. Virtually every nation has them mean different things now. US Navy, Royal Navy, French Navy for example all use completely different definition methods with the same names. Now to mention some navies like the Dutch who have a separate name.

Hell the FREMM is known as a frigate in some countries and a destroyer in others.

>>32091852
>Cruisers and frigates are being phased out because they don't serve a role that destroyers can't do just as well.
>Cruisers and frigates are being fased out because congress is afraid of the word cruiser and they don't know what frigates are.
FTFY
Also cruisers can be separated from the fleet for a longer duration than a destroyer and pack more missiles/guns. I'm sure frigates can do a lot of things a destroyer can't but we haven't really had any for a while.

>>32096558
>Hell the FREMM is known as a frigate in some countries and a destroyer in others.
It's the Horizon-class, which are a destroyer for Italy and a frigate for France.

>>32091706

Cruisers function independently of capital ship formations. Destroyers do not. From a technical perspective, there can be as much or little a difference as you like: most cruisers still running are pre-modern and such are weaker than most modern destroyers in terms of raw firepower.

I think the roles each class of ship fitted best has been changing, not really the difference between classes per se.

Cruisers are supposed to be less expensive battleships that should be able to do perform missions a battleship could do as well as act independently. But since aviation and guided missile technology took over all the things BBs were good at, cruisers became less useful.