Corporal Frisk
@corporalfrisk.com
Robin Häggblom, Finnish defence and national security analyst, Senior Advisor at Risk Intelligence. My business card preaches the value of Knowing Risk.
To be fair the old rating system also skipped over details like calibre.
December 19, 2025 at 6:45 PM
To be fair the old rating system also skipped over details like calibre.
You could just go straight to the ’xx-gun ship’ nomenclature (but with VLS-cells, obviously. Otherwise most everything would just be ’1-gun’), so instead of a 36-gun vessel we’d have a ’16-cell ship’ 😎
December 19, 2025 at 6:41 PM
You could just go straight to the ’xx-gun ship’ nomenclature (but with VLS-cells, obviously. Otherwise most everything would just be ’1-gun’), so instead of a 36-gun vessel we’d have a ’16-cell ship’ 😎
This actually makes a lot of sense 😎
December 19, 2025 at 6:17 PM
This actually makes a lot of sense 😎
As I have noted, the dividing lines aren't sharp, and I am happy to give quite a bit of weight of weight to how navies refer to their vessels, in particular when in a grey zone such as Tico, Burke, Type 26, FREMM, or a number of other designs. But Izumo isn't a destroyer, and F127 isn't a frigate.
December 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM
As I have noted, the dividing lines aren't sharp, and I am happy to give quite a bit of weight of weight to how navies refer to their vessels, in particular when in a grey zone such as Tico, Burke, Type 26, FREMM, or a number of other designs. But Izumo isn't a destroyer, and F127 isn't a frigate.
Moltke wasn't a battlecruiser in German, but since it corresponds in size and capability to that kind of ship in the major English-speaking navy, it is a very convenient shorthand rather than calling it a heavy (or large) cruiser as that would cause misunderstandings.
December 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Moltke wasn't a battlecruiser in German, but since it corresponds in size and capability to that kind of ship in the major English-speaking navy, it is a very convenient shorthand rather than calling it a heavy (or large) cruiser as that would cause misunderstandings.
When discussing vessels in English, it is usually useful to use words that have meaning in English. The words we use to denote different classes of warships tend to be heavily influenced by the usage of the two English-language navies that have taken turns in dominating the global seas for centuries
December 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM
When discussing vessels in English, it is usually useful to use words that have meaning in English. The words we use to denote different classes of warships tend to be heavily influenced by the usage of the two English-language navies that have taken turns in dominating the global seas for centuries
Yes, which is where this discussion started.
December 19, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Yes, which is where this discussion started.
Okay, then you aren’t as well-versed in modern surface vessels as I assumed. My bad 👍
December 19, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Okay, then you aren’t as well-versed in modern surface vessels as I assumed. My bad 👍
You immediately recognised the vessel wasn’t a 6,000 t vessel. Good job 👍
December 19, 2025 at 5:03 PM
You immediately recognised the vessel wasn’t a 6,000 t vessel. Good job 👍
Lo and behold, there were actually information in the word ’cruiser’ that added value to the reader. Who knew?
December 19, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Lo and behold, there were actually information in the word ’cruiser’ that added value to the reader. Who knew?
I fully understand the meaning changes over time - that I think I also showed in the earlier part of the thread - but are you honestly suggesting that if you read the headline today ”German Navy buys new cruiser” you do not think they’ve probably bought a 10,000+ t high-end surface combatant?
December 19, 2025 at 4:32 PM
I fully understand the meaning changes over time - that I think I also showed in the earlier part of the thread - but are you honestly suggesting that if you read the headline today ”German Navy buys new cruiser” you do not think they’ve probably bought a 10,000+ t high-end surface combatant?
Yes, I will say the Helicopter Destroyer was the first ship in quite a while to best the British Through-Deck Cruiser (which IIRC might be an apocryphal designation).
December 19, 2025 at 1:00 PM
Yes, I will say the Helicopter Destroyer was the first ship in quite a while to best the British Through-Deck Cruiser (which IIRC might be an apocryphal designation).
The designations are blurry (Hello, Soviet vessel designations!), but they aren't worthless.
December 19, 2025 at 12:34 PM
The designations are blurry (Hello, Soviet vessel designations!), but they aren't worthless.
Likewise, if I say someone built a frigate, your first thought isn't some kind of multirole surface combatant that likely is somewhere in the 120-150 meter LoA space, probably with a tilt either towards ASW or AAW?
December 19, 2025 at 12:34 PM
Likewise, if I say someone built a frigate, your first thought isn't some kind of multirole surface combatant that likely is somewhere in the 120-150 meter LoA space, probably with a tilt either towards ASW or AAW?
So if I say a navy just bought a 'cruiser', the image in your mind does not jump to what probably is the largest surface combatant of that particular navy, likely with a significant number of VLS-cells?
December 19, 2025 at 12:34 PM
So if I say a navy just bought a 'cruiser', the image in your mind does not jump to what probably is the largest surface combatant of that particular navy, likely with a significant number of VLS-cells?
Ship classification is supposed to help us understand what is being discussed. Yes, it has never been foolproof, as we noted above, but it is supposed to point someone reading or hearing a word into the general direction of what size and capabilities are we discussing.
December 19, 2025 at 12:12 PM
Ship classification is supposed to help us understand what is being discussed. Yes, it has never been foolproof, as we noted above, but it is supposed to point someone reading or hearing a word into the general direction of what size and capabilities are we discussing.
Displacement inflation is a thing, but air defence frigates of 12,000 tons and 96-vls cells aren't, and if they ever will be, we will need to start finding new terminology for the 16-cell/6,000 t things that pass for frigates these days or the word will just be meaningless.
December 19, 2025 at 12:12 PM
Displacement inflation is a thing, but air defence frigates of 12,000 tons and 96-vls cells aren't, and if they ever will be, we will need to start finding new terminology for the 16-cell/6,000 t things that pass for frigates these days or the word will just be meaningless.
I mean, it's definitely one way of doing it - the lines are blurry enough that anything that would be a destroyer can reasonably be classified as either a heavy frigate or a light cruiser 😎
December 19, 2025 at 12:08 PM
I mean, it's definitely one way of doing it - the lines are blurry enough that anything that would be a destroyer can reasonably be classified as either a heavy frigate or a light cruiser 😎
Yeah, I am happy to give quite a bit of freedom to countries to call their vessels what they want, in particular as doctrinal and CONOPS-differences means requirements and capabilities doesn't always translate 1:1, but at some point you just have to start calling out people.
December 19, 2025 at 11:51 AM
Yeah, I am happy to give quite a bit of freedom to countries to call their vessels what they want, in particular as doctrinal and CONOPS-differences means requirements and capabilities doesn't always translate 1:1, but at some point you just have to start calling out people.
A more relevant comparison might be the ~10,000 ton Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which in the VLS-version sports 122 cells (and eight dedicated anti-ship missile launchers).
December 19, 2025 at 11:45 AM
A more relevant comparison might be the ~10,000 ton Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which in the VLS-version sports 122 cells (and eight dedicated anti-ship missile launchers).
Or, you know, actually sticking to the truth and noting people doing racist gestures out of stupidity did something stupid, means that when calling out racism it will actually have an effect as opposed to being shrugged off by people assuming someone just was stupid again?
December 19, 2025 at 6:01 AM
Or, you know, actually sticking to the truth and noting people doing racist gestures out of stupidity did something stupid, means that when calling out racism it will actually have an effect as opposed to being shrugged off by people assuming someone just was stupid again?
But that’s the thing, I’m not sure how many of these people actually did the gesture to express their racist views, and how many just did it for the lolz 🤷♀️
December 18, 2025 at 5:05 AM
But that’s the thing, I’m not sure how many of these people actually did the gesture to express their racist views, and how many just did it for the lolz 🤷♀️