Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@cabatli_53 mentioned it many times that TF-2000 would basically be a Destroyer but we are Using NATO terms, thats why we dont call it Destroyer.
Forgive me my ignorance but i would appreciate if someone would explain how NATO defines that, what does it need to be a Destroyer?
@cabatli_53 @Neptune @isoo
8'000-9'000 tonnes?More than 8,000-9,000 tonnes I suppose but the term destroyer today is only a title to name surface combatants that have greater capabilities than a frigate. NATO (mainly Europe) is more up to "Air-Defense Frigate". But rather than it's classification, I much more worried about whether will she be able to have ABM capability. SM-2 Block IV is good but it has very limited ABM roles when compared to her sisters in SM missile family.
Cruisers dont exist anymore, their end game was WWII.Destroyers are between frigates and cruisers.Their displacements are roughly 5000-10000 tonnes.
More than 8,000-9,000 tonnes I suppose but the term destroyer today is only a title to name surface combatants that have greater capabilities than a frigate. NATO (mainly Europe) is more up to "Air-Defense Frigate". But rather than it's classification, I much more worried about whether will she be able to have ABM capability. SM-2 Block IV is good but it has very limited ABM roles when compared to her sisters in SM missile family.
8'000-9'000 tonnes?I dont know why but i had something like 5'000 in my mind, well, seems like it might take a while till we get a ''real'' destroyer, why do we lack in this field?
This is Zumwalt?But ships like FREMM, TF-2000, F-500, Dutch frigates..etc. already have the capabilities of a destroyer. BUT not near to a US destroyer (Arleigh Burke, Zumwalt) so frigate.
More than 8,000-9,000 tonnes I suppose but the term destroyer today is only a title to name surface combatants that have greater capabilities than a frigate. NATO (mainly Europe) is more up to "Air-Defense Frigate". But rather than it's classification, I much more worried about whether will she be able to have ABM capability. SM-2 Block IV is good but it has very limited ABM roles when compared to her sisters in SM missile family.
Edit: it has more armaments on various issues (ASW/ASuW/AAW) that it can not be classified like a MEKO or TF-100 since frigates have limited capabilities. And an allied guided missile destroyer is expected to have strategic striking capability. (LACM)
Ticenderoga is 9600 tons. I dont know about the other ship .What do you say for Ticonderoga's? And Italian Durand De la Pelle class has 5700 tonnes of displacement
Name is given by displacement, displacement is what shows capacity /crew accomodation . So still it goes to the same target , capability and indrectly its related to a name which is considered plainly by most people. Its changing now and if not knowing well the details of a ship, this name wont give idea about it anymore.It looks like we have agreed that capabilities are more important than name.
Just above the side plates , some windows are seen in the picture. Well its not on top of structure as we expected ,actuallys its just,that structure is too tall and makes us expect that.@isoo btw where is the Bridge of Zumwalt class, i dont see it in the picture.![]()
Those things that look like windows behind the plastic cover on railing?Just above the side plates , some windows are seen in the picture. Well its not on top of structure as we expected ,actuallys its just,that structure is too tall and makes us expect that.![]()