Turkish Naval Programs

[Exocet]

Destroyers are between frigates and cruisers.Their displacements are roughly 5000-10000 tonnes.

 

[Neptune]

@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

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)

 

[xenon54 out]

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?

Destroyers are between frigates and cruisers.Their displacements are roughly 5000-10000 tonnes.

Cruisers dont exist anymore, their end game was WWII.

 

[Exocet]

What do you say for Ticonderoga's? And Italian Durand De la Pelle class has 5700 tonnes of displacement

 

[Babur Han]

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.

If we want real ABM Capabillities, we need to develop the Missiles by ourself ! Our so called Allies will only give second Class Equippment.

BTW: In Case of the Threats in the Region and to Support of Geopolitic in Arabian Sea and Maghreb we need 2 or 3 more TF-2000 which are AAW Capable and can launch LACM !

 

[Neptune]

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?

Bro check my post I have made an edit.
It's just a matter like this "küçük abi=büyük kardeş". Isoo can tell about that.

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.

It's not as if we lack. But more like the titles.

Who can't call a ship destroyer if it's armed with Gezgin LACM, LaWS, Atmaca AShM, Torpedoes, 2 helicopters, 64 to 96 VLS missiles(ASROC, SM-2BIV/3, Hisar-O, Hisar-A).

 

[xenon54 out]

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.

This is Zumwalt? Did US Navy go full Starwars? It looks intimidating indeed.

 

[ANMDT]

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)

I have read in here sometime ago ;
cimsec.org/corvette-next/8697
Its mentioned like,nowadays size isnt a matter for ships to classify them, because tech. is advanced too fastly, while in pre-WWII there was classification based on tonnes and gun-power, post-WWII it caused some misinterpretion ,in 1975 US changed classification to call cruisers as frigates, but then they declined it because Russia kept calling the similar ones as cruisers.

As its told in the link i have given,something logical is told , to classify ships based on crew , the ships with more crew means more capability (even this has exceptions). But recently with new automated applications on ship, even commercial vessels' crew number is reduced , now its begin to be seen for naval ships ( DDG1000 for example)

Cruisers do exist, US has some ships called with CG hull classification. It seems after 5 years this classification will be up and down

To brief ,our milgem is a light frigate, while TF2000 is a light destroyer. But they are also a corvette,and frigate on the other hand. While TF100 is just frigate.

 

[Exocet]

It looks like we have agreed that capabilities are more important than name.

 

[ANMDT]

What do you say for Ticonderoga's? And Italian Durand De la Pelle class has 5700 tonnes of displacement

Ticenderoga is 9600 tons. I dont know about the other ship .

 

[xenon54 out]

@isoo btw where is the Bridge of Zumwalt class, i dont see it in the picture.

 

[ANMDT]

It looks like we have agreed that capabilities are more important than name.

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.

@isoo btw where is the Bridge of Zumwalt class, i dont see it in the picture.

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.

 

[Exocet]

Again not exactly. Zumwalt is 5000 tonnes heavier than Ticonderoga's but still a destroyer.

 

[xenon54 out]

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.

Those things that look like windows behind the plastic cover on railing?

 

[Exocet]

Don't understand it wrong.Durand De La Penne is a Destroyer.I meant that some ships that around 5000 tonnes can be classified as a destroyer as a response to @xenon54 @isoo