Any seamen here? What's the difference between a corvette

>>32572340
ship major hull classification is actually extremely inconsistent.

Russia had missile boats that were corvette sized but classified as cruisers leading to the US's Cruiser Gap.

Frigate has been used for both larger and smaller than a Destroyer depending upon country and time period, with the US Navy being the worst offender.

>>32572400
(cont)

my armchair admiral opinion is:
>Corvette: Smallest capital ship to do Navy things but not expected to do much outside its specialized role or to just be a small ship that can be used for tasks you wouldn't use bigger
>Destroyer: It has firepower and is fast, for killing shit
>Frigate: Its a bigger or smaller destroyer, depending on who you ask
>Cruiser: Bigger ships that aren't carriers but you wouldn't call a Destroyer or Frigate

I'm a land sailor so couldn't tell you

>>32572340

There are many different answers to this question. The first is to just go by size.

1000 - 2000 tons: Corvette
3000 - 5000 tons: Frigate
6000 - 9000 tons: Destroyer
10000 tons or more: Cruiser

Aviation facilities also factor into this. Generally, a ship with a flight deck but no aviation hangar will be considered a corvette by default. A frigate will have a flight deck and a hangar with capacity for 1 helicopter. (Although the Oliver Perry Frigates had enough room for 2) A destroyer will be expected have flight deck and aviation hanger. (Note: The Japanese Kongo-class destroyer does not feature an aviation hangar)

Another way to differentiate ships is just to look at the weapons it is capable of carrying. A modern destroyer is expected to have extensive area air defense capabilities, meaning it carries a very large number of surface-to-air missiles and it is capable of shooting down planes and missiles from long-range.

These could be considered general guidelines, but in truth consistency at all. One country's cruiser might me be another country's destroyer and one country's corvette might be another country's frigate. In many cases, classifications are driven by politics as much as anything else. Every navy in the world has their own classification system and they don't mesh together well.

>>32572340
In present day the terms are completely arbitrary

Japan considers their helicopter carriers destroyers for political reasons. America considers anything that floats and isn't an aircraft carrier or submarine a destoryer. It's pretty meaningless now.

>>32572565
Fuck me. Ok, well I'm trying to comprehend China's Naval capabilities, with my reference frame being the U.S. Navy.

China has a lot of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Missile Boats (along with other stuff that isn't hard to figure out).

The U.S. has Destroyers and Cruisers. How do these line up with the Chinese designations?

>>32572700
I recommend getting each class and finding the tonnage, crew and armament of each.

Then group them side by side for similar characteristics/role.

A missile boat is likely going to be a small craft and not a capital ship.

cruisers in the modern age are the most heavily armed surface ships afloat. since a battleship must have armor and big guns, and we don't use those anymore, cruisers have the most firepower. Even Kuznetsov, since she carries anti-ship missiles, is classified as an "aircraft-carrying cruiser"

>>32572737
flash cards or spreadsheet works, depending on your autism

>>32572700
don't look at the name, look at the tonnage, sensors, weapons, and role.

general-purpose guessing-guide for retards:
corvette = coast guard+
missile boat = small boats to scare away invasions instead of do police work
destroyer = blue water
cruiser = big and old destroyer, often specced for counter air

>>32572737
So I bothered to do this, and I was surprised to see the designations were actually consistent!

Both Chinese and American Destroyers have about the same tonnage, speed, and compliment. Likewise with Frigates. The American ships are generally bigger, better, faster, stronger- but otherwise similar.

However America never fielded anything as small as a corvette. And we don't seem too fond of Frigates.

Cruisers seem to be larger than Destroyers but only by a little bit. Very similar tonnage and compliment. Not sure what's up with that.
>>32572861
May have the right idea here. Cruisers are just a big old destroyer?

>>32573112
Well Cruisers are obsoleteish.

You have the whole 1975 US Navy reclassification which changed guided missile frigates into light cruisers. aka big destroyers.

There isn't any reason to have particularly large warships unless it is a carrier, as anti-ship missiles tend to be the primary weapon.

File: 1471122170272.jpg (371KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1280x720px

>>32573112
>Both Chinese and American Destroyers have about the same tonnage
How? China's heaviest destroyer, the Type 052D, is still only around 7000 tons full displacement whereas the Burke flight II is around 9000 tons. That's quite a significant difference.

>>32573657

That will change pretty soon. Their next destroyer is supposed to be roughly 10000 tons at full load, 175 meters long, and holds 128 missiles.

>>32572565

Real answers are size, doctrine, politics and propaganda.

Corvettes are smaller ships, ocean going missile boats or gun boats. Size applies here.

Doctrine pretty much defines rest. A ship one country might call frigate, could be destroyer in another navy.

For USN frigate is or was ASW focused general purpose warship that is smaller than destroyer. Destroyer was general purpose warship. Ticonderoga-class cruisers are cruisers because 'muh cruiser gap in 70's, during development it was air defense destroyer with bigger command facilities.

>The Japanese Kongo-class destroyer does not feature an aviation hangar

Neither does older USN Arleigh-Burkes.

File: River Class.jpg (2MB, 2203x1655px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2203x1655px

>>32572340
It depends entirely on the Nation.

in the Modern Royal Navy its something like this:

OPV: (offshore patrol vessel, pic related), Ocean going medium endurance (30 days or so) . Light armament, designed to protect fisheries, stop smugglers

Corvette: Larger than an OPV with a long endurance closer to 90 days, improved self-defence but limited offensive weapons, designed for humanitarian missions and dealing with pirates and other low threat enemies.

Frigate: major surface combatant, general purpose ship with onboard aviation, primary ASW ships, AAW self defence

Destroyer: Major Surface combatant tasked with defending the fleet from air attack, AAW Area defence, can act as flagship due to command facilities in place

Cruisers do not have a place in the modern Royal Navy, their duties have been taken over by a mixture of Destroyers, Aircraft carriers and Submarines.

>>32572340
I looked into this once, and the conclusion I came to is 'no one, including the people who design and build them for a living, has a fucking clue'.

File: 11356 admiral grigorovich (6).jpg (337KB, 2048x915px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2048x915px

>>32572340
In a modern Navy ship classification is largely nominal, but there are some general distinctive features remaining:
A corvette is a small to medium sized ship with between 500 and 3500 tonnes displacement designed for river, littoral and occasionally blue water warfare and tasked to support local landing operations and defend national economic zones from one or a variety of threats depending on its size.
A frigate is a medium sized ship with between 2000 and 5000 tonnes displacement designed for blue water and occasionally littoral warfare and tasked to patrol international economic zones and escort other ships amplifying the firepower of a battle group with a variety of weaponry.
A destroyer is a large ship with between 6000 and 10000 (nowadays usually leaning towards 9000-10000) tonnes displacement designed for full scale blue water warfare, cruise (i.e. solo) operations, armed with a full variety of offensive and defensive weaponry and tasked to preform a full variety of combat missions, project force and serve as a basis and backbone of a battle group, along with a cruiser.
A cruiser is an even larger ship with between 10000 and 20000 tonnes and as much as over 20000 tonnes displacement for the so called heavy or as NATO prefers to call them battlecruisers. In its role it is essentially what a modern destroyer has become at smaller expense of displacement and it essentially fulfils the same role, usually simply carrying larger amount of heavier weaponry and more surveillance, tracking, guiding and electronic warfare means.
A line between destroyer and cruiser classes tarnished because it became quite possible to build a cruiser (i.e. cruising warship capable to preform a variety of solo operations) in a destroyer hull, so the remaining difference only preserves in a larger displacement and firepower of a cruiser. Corvettes are more or less tied with littoral operations, but modern frigates take on roles of previous destroyers in a similar manner.

File: Totally a Destroyer - JS Hyūga.jpg (100KB, 1024x588px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1024x588px

>>32572639
Yeah, sometimes the ship's classification is just what gets it funded - US cold-war Cruisers, the Royal Navy's "through-deck cruisers", Japanese "helicopter destroyers"

File: 1143.4 baku (2).jpg (3MB, 1900x2490px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1900x2490px

>>32576733
>Japanese "helicopter destroyers"
How is it in any way different from Soviet aircraft cruisers?

>>32572565
We might as well just reclassify the destroyers in the USN as cruisers and be done with it.

File: JS Izumo.jpg (104KB, 1024x658px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x658px

>>32576799
The soviet one actually has non-CIWS weapons on it?

File: 1143 kiev (2).jpg (712KB, 2048x2040px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 2048x2040px

>>32576836
>Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer
>Armament: 16 cells Mk 41 VLS
So does the Japanese one.

File: 1280px-Aircraft_carrier_'Baku'_in_1988_(4).jpg (261KB, 1280x825px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1280x825px

>>32576799

I love the Kievs, pity they all ended up as floating hotels or septic tanks.

File: Kirov (reporting).jpg (73KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x535px

>>32576866
Ah, so it does, my mistake.
Can't say the same about the Izumo though

>>32572340
Hahahahahahaha

>>32576799
The destroyers are designed specifically for carrying helicopters for ASW. It's all arbitrary anyway.

File: invincible_class_l1.jpg (154KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x600px

>>32576733
>>32576799

The Japanese, Russians and British large ASW flattops are all fairly interesting concepts. All having a slightly focuses, excluding the primary concept of ASW.

>Japanese: purebreed flattop, self-defence missiles only, no fixed wing - rotary only
>British: STVOL, Area-defence missiles only, even mixed of fixed wing and rotary with a focus on fixed wing
>Russian: VTOL, AsHM&Area-defence missiles, even mixed of fixed wing and rotary with a focus on rotary

Up till about 1960? Defined by role and displacement.

Post 1960? Whatever the navy decides to float the idea as. The only defined naval vessel at this point is the Aircraft Carrier.

Everything else is upto conjecture.

>>32576983
>It's all arbitrary anyway.
this, things like frigate, cruiser, corvette, etc. used to refer to size, but at some point it started referring to role, but the roles are all arbitrary and change every few years

>>32572639
>Japan considers their helicopter carriers destroyers
:le_london_naval_agreement_face:

>>32577010

>Japan: Limited by law
>Britain: Limited by aircraft options and funding
>Russia: Limited by aircraft and quality control

Britain's ideal carrier for the time was literally to have aircraft in the air over a target that would otherwise have no aircraft launching capabilities.

That's why Harriers were so central to the idea of a naval airfleet since they were relatively good for the era they were designed in and having them in places like Falklands and other navally removed regions tends to give you a direct advantage if they can't get decent AA like Argentina.

File: 3577164973_8c0deaf957_o.jpg (913KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 1024x682px

>>32576801

I'd rather just do away with the superfluous cruiser designation. There is no reason why the Ticonderogas need to be called "cruisers." They are a class of guided-missile destroyer and the irrelevant "cruiser" designation only serves to make things confusing. In fact, the Ticos were always intended to be a class of destroyer. They were redesignated as cruisers for purely political reasons.

>>32576939
>Can't say the same about the Izumo though
Yeah, but that's probably because they don't want to change the habitual classification, not because some sneaky shenanigans to get it funded or fool someone.
>>32576983
Not sure what exactly are you trying to say here, but Kiev-class was essentially the same, only with heavier armament and some amount of fixed wing attack aircraft as a consequence of being twice to thrice the size of Hyūga-class.
>>32577088
Also this. A modern cruiser is what Zumwalt could have been without its shitty focus on guns, or what Russians are willing to develop as their future 17000 tonne "destroyer".

>>32577088

I'd rather just do away with destroyers and cruisers in general.

The range advantage doesn't matter now and having 2x the number of multi-role frigates that have a modular role system is infinitely more useful.

Granted guided missile destroyers are more efficient but it's hardly a reasonable investment in the modern theatre of war when your opponent can't even counter a fucking deckgun and most modern frigates have VLS rolled into their design.

>>32577185
>probably because they don't want to change the habitual classification
By the text their own constitution, they're not allowed to have aircraft carriers (and a few other systems) - it gets around that.

But on a ship with nothing but CIWS and an air wing, calling it a anything but a carrier is really stretching definitions.

Though said definitions, as this thread so clearly stresses, are almost entirely meaningless

>>32577234
They're helicopter carriers though.

>>32577010
>>32577039
Russian carriers are also limited by the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, under which non-capital ships over 15,000 tons cannot travel the Bosporus straits. Carriers are specifically designated as non-capital ships, but Russian carriers are designated cruisers which are capital ships.

This is crazy stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits#Aircraft_carriers

File: 02155018.jpg (296KB, 1600x1068px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1600x1068px

>>32577370
It's a myth that they are designated so because of that. In real life they are designated heavy aircraft carrying cruisers because they are in their role a continuation of Project 1123 Condor ASW cruisers.

>>32577039
>Britain's ideal carrier for the time was literally to have aircraft in the air over a target that would otherwise have no aircraft launching capabilities.

No, the UK retired its fleet carriers because they would not be needed in any conceivable war with Russia. The Invincible class were primarily submarine hunters with harriers thrown in as a way of protecting the carrier. The RN at the time was geared almost totally for protecting GIUK with some capability remaining for amphibious assaults of the third world.

>>32577460
According to one of the sources in Wikipedia, the situation regarding the treaty seems to be murky. At the very least, it is mainly up to Turkey to decide if carriers are indeed excluded or not.

I would think that the treaty at least made it easier to approach the problem of an ASW platform from a cruiser perspective.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a219829.pdf

>>32577472

How was your point any different to mine?

>>32578950
Because we were not limited by aircraft types - we had fleet carriers with phantoms and buccaneers when invincible was designed.

We were not limited by money either, if there was a need for them we could have had them

File: ca7f01caee56191ce83ea5f22b981f68.jpg (47KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x360px

>>32572340
Classifications today are pointless, in the US navy everything is a Destroyer, Submarine, or Carrier. However, 70 years ago it was easy to tell the difference between a cruiser and a destroyer.

>>32579130
>in the US navy everything is a Destroyer, Submarine, or Carrier

Tell that to the 22 active Guider Missile Cruisers.

File: US_Navy_110401-N-SF508-181_The_Ticonderoga-class_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Shiloh_(CG_67)_transits_off_the_northeastern_coast_of_Japan.jpg (1MB, 4288x2844px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2844px

>>32579163
>Tell that to the 22 active Guider Missile Cruisers.
Originally supposed to be designated as a what?
Built on the hull of a what?
Destroyer!

I like it how the retarded railgun meme thread is getting bumped and this one with actual discussion isn't.

>>32572514
dank u 4 ur cervix

>>32572340
Yes.

File: 1483917762215.jpg (110KB, 686x622px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 686x622px

>>32581757
sorry the Internet's don't meet your standards lmao

File: gPICT2612.jpg (218KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 2560x1920px

>>32572340
all those terms (cruiser not included) comes from a time when ships looked like pic related
back then it was a specific hull design that named the ship, this is a corvett

now a days its just general denotions thrown around to make it easier define the ships role, the names happen to be deeply rooted in tradition, and the ships with similar names to day fill similar roles as they did back then
ofc no where near similar in practice, but in tactics, screening and such

i dont know alot about ships tho

>>32578976
So you don't need missiles on your DDGs either, I gather?

>>32579267
What about the nuclear cruisers? Do you think if they ever made a ship like the california class cruisers they could call it a 'destroyer'?

>>32582034

Are you referring to the retirement of Harpoon for the RN next year?

>>32581793
>Mike Pence
>Man who angrilly masturbates to gay porn

>>32582034
>Hurr LRASM deal hasn't been announced yet so the RN is definitely retiring their ASM's without replacements.

>>32582205

>What about the nuclear cruisers?

What about them? Russia is the only country that still operates CGN's. And they have like two that actually work.

>>32582272
>>32582210
Even the RN is saying it's a stupid decision that was made because of budget cuts, and you think that it's just hurrrrr we're just waiting to reveal our trap card. Maybe you don't need a full aircraft complement for your carriers either, no?

>>32576916
>I love the Kievs, pity they all ended up as floating hotels or septic tanks.
The Minsk is a tourist attraction in Shenzhen.

You can go on board for a RMB100ish ticket, about $20. Some of it is intact, like crew quarters and stuff, most of it is gutted and there are one or two tourist shops and stuff in places. The bridge is intact.

It's old and rusting and stuff but fun to poke around in. They've made replica ordinance to put in the launch tubes and they've brought in some decrepit MiG that I remember thinking was probably never on the Minsk. Some rusting shells of Hinds are there as well.

I consider Corvette 1,000-2,000 ton, Frigate 2,000-3,000 ton, destroyer 3,000-6,000 ton, cruiser 6,000 ton+

>>32573112
>However America never fielded anything as small as a corvette. And we don't seem too fond of Frigates.

Look at the old WW2 destroyer escorts as our version of corvettes, and our CG cutters look like they fall into the frigate category. If you're going by weight, the Independence class LCS would be corvettes and the Freedom class could be considered to be light frigates. Or, since they're both intended for traditional corvette duties, just call them both corvettes.

>>32582461

Have they? I haven't seen any sign of that, but I still don't get your point.

File: ships.png (156KB, 907x912px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 907x912px

>>32572340

Top to Bottom

Type 45 Destroyer
Type 26 Frigate
Khareef-class corvette
River-class OPV

>>32587344

Really is comical that Daring will probably become cruiser weight by the end of her life and the Type 26 is already pushing into destroyer weight at the beginning of her life.

>>32587344
This