Except for cruisers/battlecruisers, which are usually large surface combatants, destroyers, frigates, and corvettes don't seem to have well-defined sizes anymore. They all have similar sizes and weapons. In fact, there are corvettes that carry more missiles than a destroyer.
When was the last time anyone made a thing and called it a cruiser?
>>64458304
>>64458291It matters if you're going to play C&C RA2They all do the same shit les or more
These days classifications are less a tonnage estimation than they are something of a ship's intended role and armament. Even then however there's a great deal of variation between nations. Some just call everything frigates. Some just call everything destroyers. Some are building corvettes with more tonnage than a destroyer. Its a mess and there's no solid structure of classification anymore.As a very rough rule of thumb it goes something like this:*Destroyers are primarily for air defense and have the top-end AA weaponry and radars. *Frigates are primarily anti-sub. They often come with better towed sonar or weird shit like CODLAG propulsion to let them sneak up on subs.*Corvettes are close-in escorts with limited autonomy.
>>64458291>don't seem to have well-defined sizes anymoreThey NEVER DID.
>>64458291Corvettes for speed, destroyers for combat, frigates for patrolling, scale and arm them according to the waters you have to defend
>>64458291Guided missile ships kinda fucked everything up, since we no longer had gun caliber and armor to classify ships. That being said *gEnErAlLy SpEaKiNg* a cruiser is going to be the largest surface combatant outside a carrier. Depending on who you ask it also has facilities for a flag officer. A destroyer is slightly smaller/lacks facilities for a flag officer. In most navies, cruisers and destroyers are launched with the most capable weapons and sensors. They are well-suited for any situation whether it's ASW, ASuW and AAW. Frigates are generally the next step down. They are smaller and usually specialize in one or two of the aforementioned roles. Corvettes are even smaller and more specialized, and they tend to stay close to their home port rather than sail around the ocean for indefinite periods of time.
DDs stay on active fleetKEs go on FS and TP
>>64458291Destroyers, not aircraft carriers, are the modern battleship. They are the most powerful surface combatants afloat. Many are approaching the weight of pre-dreadnought battleships. A modern guided missile destroyer could destroy a mid-20th century battlewagon with ease. If a carrier got into a gun battle with a destroyer, it would be destroyed easily. That is why they need destroyers to escort them.Any navy without destroyers, is like a early 20th century navy without battleships. Destroyers are the modern battleship, and all naval strength should be measured in destroyers, not carriers or SSBNs. They should be considered capital ships.The USN has over 100 destroyers and destroyer-based cruisers.
>>64460278>If a carrier got into a gun battle with a destroyer, it would be destroyed easily.Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
>>64458291It has been a largely political question what you call a type of warship for over a century.And it is a pretty confused process because age of sail terms and age of steam terms get mixed together at different times and in different places.
>>64458304>When was the last time anyone made a thing and called it a cruiser?If you want a serious answer, the last time a navy built a ship and called it a cruiser themselves was the USN in 1994.The PLAN's Type 055 is classed as a cruiser by the US and NATO (probably because it is a pretty big ship) but the PLAN refers to it as a missile destroyer.
>>64458291The measurement nowadays is how many anti-ship, anti-sub and VLS cells your ship can have.The main meta is having the smallest ship that can fit dozens of VLS cells to overwhelm your enemy with missile spam.Missile range is also a thing, it doesn't matter if your frigate/destroyer has 100 VLS cells but your enemy has longer range missiles.
>>64458304>>64460425The follow on class they are planning on making after the tippy ship was officially called a cruiser by the DPRK in their press release.
>>64458291
>>64458291Idek anymore. I just look at displacement to get an idea of how big the vessel is. From there, whatever the ship is equipped with determines its capability.
>>64458291Man, modern ships look so fucking gay. I know battleships are obsolete but holy shit I wish they were still around even if purely for aesthetics
>>64460425>The PLAN's Type 055 is classed as a cruiser by the US and NATO (probably because it is a pretty big ship) but the PLAN refers to it as a missile destroyer.Does the Chinese Navy even classify any of it's vessels as cruisers to begin with?
>>64460425>>64465184
>>64465233
