The BIG Britain and France thread.

[Matthieu]

I'd say it means more than this thread overall and I already explained why they're destroyers. They have a long range capability and can protect other ships from both air and submarine threats.

[AdmiralAnthony]

A destroyer is classified as a specialised air defence warship. Horizon class are classified as Destroyers. Any other large surface combatant is classed as a frigate and frigates generally perform ASW, land attack and anti ship roles along with maritime security missions etc. FREMM are not specialist air defence vessels these are therefore frigates.

[AdmiralAnthony]

Originally Posted by Matthieu

I'd say it means more than this thread overall and I already explained why they're destroyers. They have a long range capability and can protect other ships from both air and submarine threats.

A type23 frigate can do all these things, but it's still a frigate.

[BodgeJob1]

Lulz...a thread created to celebrate UK/France co-operation descends into petty squabbling and arguments.

luv it...

[SO143]

Then why are they so cheap compared to destroyers type 45 class

[AdmiralAnthony]

Originally Posted by hovis

Just my tuppence worth...

Just because NATO may call it a Destroyer doesn't necessarily make it so - that's a political decision, not one made using the facts, ie size, systems and role of the ship.

Just like the Harrier Carriers being called "Through-Deck Cruisers" politically, yet they were still fundamentally Aircraft Carriers.

The D on the French Frigates means diddly squat.

Correct. The Danish Absalon class have a 'L' for Landing hull classification. They're not amphibious ships nor can they do over the horizon amphibious assault with LCVPs and hovercraft. They need to dock first before off loading their cargo. Their armament makes them a guided missile frigate but their hull classification does not indicate so.

[AdmiralAnthony]

Originally Posted by BodgeJob1

Lulz...a thread created to celebrate UK/France co-operation descends into petty squabbling and arguments.

luv it...

It's a debate. The Falklands thread is for arguments...

[AdmiralAnthony]

Originally Posted by SO143

Then why are they so cheap compared to destroyers type 45 class

Because they do not come fitted with all the advanced equipment and software which makes the Daring class such an advanced ship. Because Daring comes with all the specialist radar, tracking system, sensors and everything else this is what classifies it as a destroyer.

[Splish]

Originally Posted by SO143

Then why are they so cheap compared to destroyers type 45 class

Because BAE didn't build them.

[Matthieu]

Originally Posted by SO143

Then why are they so cheap compared to destroyers type 45 class

They are less capable than a Type 45 in anti-air defense, no doubt, but that doesn't make any less of them destroyers.

Beside of this, 6 Type 45 are built. R&D is divided between 6 ships.

22 FREMM are being built... the cost of research isn't the same per ship. 11 for France, 10 for Italy and 1 for Morocco. Beside of this R&D cost was lower because experience acquired from the Horizon class and La Fayette class has been used.

If you play by cost, the Horizon class ships cost 2 billion euros each without the missiles:
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=102722

That's because the R&D cost is divided between only 4 ships, and the R&D cost of the Horizon class is huge.

Ces bâtiments sont donc équipés de matériels extrêmement performants et complexes, qui justifient en grande partie le coût particulièrement élevé de ces quatre unités : 2 milliards d'euros hors PAAMS.

A type23 frigate can do all these things, but it's still a frigate.

Until you can prove us here that they can protect a fleet, this just an assertion without support.

Because they do not come fitted with all the advanced equipment and software which makes the Daring class such an advanced ship. Because Daring comes with all the specialist radar, tracking system, sensors and everything else this is what classifies it as a destroyer.

A destroyer is not defined by its electronics nor by its cost but by its functions. Already stated.

[SO143]

Good explanation however I'd say those ships are multi role frigates. Even if there were real advanced anti air destroyers, they should not be classed as modern/stealth/advanced destroyers because of their cost, size, displacement, design, different electronic and radar systems which are basically the same as frigate's or older generation of destroyer's. anyway we can't really compare rn ships and fn ships based on the same standards because theses navies are structured differently and for different purposes as well

[Matthieu]

destroyers does not necessary anti-air destroyers. It's the capability to protect a group of ships, a fleet, from menaces that define a destroyer. The ships are capable of creating a "protection bubble" around them over long distance travels. That's the role destroyers were, and still are, made for.

And even so, to be honest, destroyers/cruisers/frigates mean less and less these days. In the end there will be only frigates left with smaller and smaller ships being more and more able.

The FREMM data processing capability is higher than that of the Horizon class (and probably more than the Type 45 too). Why? Technology evolves so fast, years ago I paid 900 euros for a Core i7 975 CPU and today a much cheaper CPU can eat it for breakfast. Seems this rule now applies to ships and military equipments too. Today a cell phone is cheaper and more powerful than a 10 years old computer. In high school our calculating machines were more sophisticated than cold war supercomputers...

The French set a requirement for 4 Horizon, and ordered only 2. In the title of the article I posted they were the "most advanced ships in the West", only to be beaten by the Type 45 shortly later.

The US air force ordered dozens of B-2 at a 2 billion $ cost each... and they'll be withdrawn before the B-52.

France still has demands for the Mirage 2000, while no one buys the Rafale (more advanced). France recently won a contract to upgrade India's Mirage 2000s for example. China had mentioned the Mirage 2000 as a priority purchase when it demanded the weapon embargo to be lifted.

Our high tech gadgets, the more we have them the less they seem efficient. And their design expectancy is lower and lower. The La Fayette class was the state of the art frigate and now it's an old fashioned design. Seems that it's more interesting to have one solid basis and several variants of the same product that gets upgraded.

I think that's the rationale for the FREMM, Type 26 and recent American upgrades of the Arleigh Burke design. Rather than super expensive state of the art ships that get outdated in months and are hard to make evolve (Horizon, Type 45, Zumwalt)

[TallBox]

Agree with Matthieu regarding definitions of warships

There are a many factors contributing to the effectiveness of warship (weapons, sensors, fire control system, processors, crew etc) that it only makes sense to define a warship not based on an individual factor, but by the total output. To me, this means the threat-level that the warship is designed for; theatre-level offence/defence (destroyers, SSNs) or localised offence/defence (frigates) or point offence/defence (corvettes, OPV etc).

If you would prefer to stick to the old measure of a warship by the gauge of their guns then may I suggest a 21st century update: the number of VLS. That would mean the following:

- King Sejong the Great-class (Republic of Korea) - 128 VLS
- Ticonderoga-class (USA) - 122 VLS
- Arleigh Burke-class (USA) - 96 VLS
- Atago-class (Japan) - 96 VLS
- Kongo-class (Japan) - 90 VLS
- Zumwalt-class (USA) - 80 VLS
- Hobart-class (Australia) - 48 VLS
- Daring-class (UK) - 48 VLS
- Horizon-class (France/Italy)- 48 VLS
- Alvaro de Bazan-class (Spain) - 48 VLS
- Admiral Gorshkov-class (Russia) - 48 VLS
- Type 052C Luyang II-class (China) - 48 VLS
- De Zeven Provincien-class (Netherlands) - 40 VLS
- FREMM-class (France/Italy) - 32 VLS?
- Iron Duke-class (UK) - 32 VLS?
- Type 26-class (UK) - 24 VLS?
- Talwar/Grigorovich-class (Russia/India) - 8 VLS ()
- Fridtjof Nansen-class (Norway) - 8 VLS ()
- Sachsen-class (Germany) - 8 VLS ()

[madjackmcmad]

Getting bogged down in too many technicalities here.

The UK has a more dedicated destroyer/frigate force whereas the MN is more multi-role. It's easy to classify British ships, Type45's are for air defence, Type 23 for ASW. We've always seemed to prefer dedicated platforms.... with restrictive budgets that may change in the future for the RN too. Infact Type 26 may go that way with 8 dedicated ASW platforms & 5 General Purpose.

I'll not be having Casserass 700 ton boats as Amphibious Ships or 1000 tonners as blue water escorts of any sort of description though!

[mic of Orion]

Originally Posted by Matthieu

The Type 26 have received hull numbers?

The Zumwalt destroyer has received the DDG-1000 hull number, which isn't a cruiser hull number (CG-XXX for the Ticonderoga class).

Matt!!!

First, FREMM are frigates, what French designate them is their business, they can call it Battle Star Galcticus class and have designation CCG for all we care. FREMM are cheap reliable patrol/escorts, FREMM offensive capability is a standard of all modern frigates. you look at De Zeven and Sacshen frigates which are more capable than FREMM, and new German Frigates that are about to enter service will also outclass FREMM as does Spanish F100 class.

French classify all their ships Frigates but give all haver ships i/e over 3500GRT D designation, this has been the case throughout history since WW2, French do have word for destroyer (destructeur) but meaning and connotations are somewhat confusing and reason why France never uses the term. Also Frigates pre-date word destructeur in naval terminology (French naval terminology).

Designation contre-torpilleur/torpilleur (destroyer) to what is very large escort warship sounded stupid so French got back to designating all their ships subsequent of WW2 with D designation but calling them frigates.

Anyways, D is a standard ASW and Anti Ship designation for all French frigates, AA designation was always built and meant to be main AA defence warship of typical French battle group, you go as far as you want you'll see AA Frigates always were larger more powerful and more capable than standard ASW/General purpose escorts with in French Navy.


Also just to add cost of one FREMM frigate is less than half of what Horizon class, so to call them both destroyers is just pure fancy game of words, you might call them destroyer, some french forumers and even some military enthusiast in France might call them so, they bare designation D, but in all tense and purpose they are frigates.

[mic of Orion]

Originally Posted by TallBox

Agree with Matthieu regarding definitions of warships

There are a many factors contributing to the effectiveness of warship (weapons, sensors, fire control system, processors, crew etc) that it only makes sense to define a warship not based on an individual factor, but by the total output. To me, this means the threat-level that the warship is designed for; theatre-level offence/defence (destroyers, SSNs) or localised offence/defence (frigates) or point offence/defence (corvettes, OPV etc).

If you would prefer to stick to the old measure of a warship by the gauge of their guns then may I suggest a 21st century update: the number of VLS. That would mean the following:

- King Sejong the Great-class (Republic of Korea) - 128 VLS
- Ticonderoga-class (USA) - 122 VLS
- Arleigh Burke-class (USA) - 96 VLS
- Atago-class (Japan) - 96 VLS
- Kongo-class (Japan) - 90 VLS
- Zumwalt-class (USA) - 80 VLS
- Hobart-class (Australia) - 48 VLS
- Daring-class (UK) - 48 VLS
- Horizon-class (France/Italy)- 48 VLS
- Alvaro de Bazan-class (Spain) - 48 VLS
- Admiral Gorshkov-class (Russia) - 48 VLS
- Type 052C Luyang II-class (China) - 48 VLS
- De Zeven Provincien-class (Netherlands) - 40 VLS
- FREMM-class (France/Italy) - 32 VLS?
- Iron Duke-class (UK) - 32 VLS?
- Type 26-class (UK) - 24 VLS?
- Talwar/Grigorovich-class (Russia/India) - 8 VLS ()
- Fridtjof Nansen-class (Norway) - 8 VLS ()
- Sachsen-class (Germany) - 8 VLS ()

Type 26 will have most likely 32 vls (16x2)
And Sashsen class has vls of 32, 8+24 can carry up tp 56 missiles. 24 medium/long range +32 short range AA.

[caserass]

Originally Posted by mic of Orion

Matt!!!

First, FREMM are frigates, what French designate them is their business, they can call it Battle Star Galcticus class and have designation CCG for all we care.

Dont you understand the classification is made by NATO and not by the french army or royal navy ??
That is just unbelievable you don't understand that, while it has been repeated again and again !

FREMM are cheap reliable patrol/escorts, FREMM offensive capability is a standard of all modern frigates.

I'm not sure all the frigates have got cruise missile in this quantity, as for the "cheap" argument, I'm afraid you're wrong here.
FREMM : 11 frégates pour 7 milliards d'euros

you look at De Zeven and Sacshen frigates which are more capable than FREMM, and new German Frigates that are about to enter service will also outclass FREMM as does Spanish F100 class.

De Zeven and Sacshen more capable than a fremm whereas their range is 7000km against 11000 for a FREMM ? And where are these cruise missile ? What do you call more capable ?

French classify all their ships Frigates but give all haver ships i/e over 3500GRT D designation, this has been the case throughout history since WW2, French do have word for destroyer (destructeur)

Destructeur ??? This is the translation of the word, but this word is not applied in this context. There is not ONE boat or type of boat that has been called this way in the French navy. It never happened !
So again, when will you understand there is no translation of the word Destroyer other than Frégate !

but meaning and connotations are somewhat confusing and reason why France never uses the term.

No, it's not the reason, the reason is "destroyer is an english word" that's it !

Also Frigates pre-date word destructeur in naval terminology (French naval terminology).

It's becoming really embarrassing. WTF are you talking about !

Designation contre-torpilleur/torpilleur (destroyer) to what is very large escort warship sounded stupid so French got back to designating all their ships subsequent of WW2 with D designation but calling them frigates.

Yes, it's true, but it doesn't change anything, The D or the F is not given by anyone just like that, some french frégates are classified by a F and other by a D because there is a classification made by NATO ! So when a ship is following all the requirement for a F she's got a F and when the requirements for a D is there, then she's got a D. This is as simple as that, and there is nothing to argue.

Anyways, D is a standard ASW and Anti Ship designation for all French frigates,

No whatsoever
Class Lafayette

AA designation was always built and meant to be main AA defence warship of typical French battle group, you go as far as you want you'll see AA Frigates always were larger more powerful and more capable than standard ASW/General purpose escorts with in French Navy.
Also just to add cost of one FREMM frigate is less than half of what Horizon class, so to call them both destroyers is just pure fancy game of words, you might call them destroyer, some french forumers and even some military enthusiast in France might call them so, they bare designation D, but in all tense and purpose they are frigates.

here is why the French put a D to the Fremm

STANAG is the NATO abbreviation for Standardization Agreement, which sets up processes, procedures, terms, and conditions for common military or technical procedures or equipment between the member countries of the alliance. Each NATO state ratifies a STANAG and implements it within their own military. The purpose is to provide common operational and administrative procedures and logistics, so one member nation's military may use the stores and support of another member's military. STANAGs also form the basis for technical interoperability between a wide variety of communication and information (CIS) systems essential for NATO and Allied operations.

Among the hundreds of standardization agreements (current total is just short of 1300) are those for calibres of small arms ammunition, map markings, communications procedures, and classification of bridges.

BTW the cost of one fremm is about 630 millions while the cost of one Horizon was 800 millions, it's not what I'd call "HALF". As for the FREMM AAW it will be over 800 millions and are expected to be more expensive than the Horizon class.
(Both cost exclude the research)


I wonder if I have ever seen such thing in all my life... You guys are stubborn, that's just amazing.

First, the size !
........FREMM is big enough.
Then, the displacement !
........Almost the same than a type 45..
then it's the armament !
........The armament is very good and even better.
then the price is half of what was the cost of the Horizon !
........Not true

Then, look, the french call them fregate
........well the word destroyer doesn't exist in French
yes it does
........no it doesn't

The french navy used to call the "put whatever you want here, everything has been done" Frégate, so there are frigates
........There is no other word than frégate in French ! (yes once again)

Look ! The technology is not good
........Not true whatsoever, the FREMM are more technology advanced than the Horizon Class (barred the radar), their stealth technology will be better as their armament and the technology made for electronic warfare will be wayyyyyy better than any other ship in the French navy.


Did I forget one argument ?

[caserass]

Originally Posted by madjackmcmad

I'll not be having Casserass 700 ton boats as Amphibious Ships or 1000 tonners as blue water escorts of any sort of description though!

What do you mean, I'm sorry I don't understand

[skit_uk]

If this thread is an indicator of how British and French generals will be communicating then we are all doomed lol.

British General: Would you be a good chap and please provide some of your French destroyers to sink that Ruski ship

French general: But we only have frigates??

British General: Well what are those ships with the D on the side of it then?

etc. etc.

[AdmiralAnthony]

Caserass how many times do we have to point out that it's not really the size of the ship or it's armament (although it is a part of it) it's the role of the warship. Destroyers are specialised air defence warships. Horizon class are thus Destroyers and perhaps the air defence Fremm variant can be considered a destroyer but because they're all part of one ship design with difference in armament the Fremm ships are all thus considered Frigates.