What is the difference between 駆逐艦/kuchikukan & 護衛艦/goeikan when both ships would be considered DD/destroyers?

The Japanese Self-Defense Force attempt to make their naming conventions less offensive in tone, thus tend to call everything an "escort ship" 護衛艦. While the Imperial Japanese Navy used the standard naming conventions of the era translated into Japanese, thus "destroyer" 駆逐艦/.

MalusTTK said:

What is the difference between 駆逐艦/kuchikukan & 護衛艦/goeikan when both ships would be considered DD/destroyers?

ithekro said:

The Japanese Self-Defense Force attempt to make their naming conventions less offensive in tone, thus tend to call everything an "escort ship" 護衛艦. While the Imperial Japanese Navy used the standard naming conventions of the era translated into Japanese, thus "destroyer" 駆逐艦/.

Quoting myself from post #3388990 (to provide examples):

NNescio said:

Abukuma-class corvette escort vessel!
Hatsuyuki-class frigate escort vessel!
Murasame-class destroyer escort vessel!
Hatakaze-class guided missile destroyer escort vessel!
Maya-class guided missile cruiser escort vessel!
Kaga, the Izumo-class helicopter carrier helicopter-equipped escort vessel!

Guess they had to stretch a 'bit' for the last one.

(The official English translations are more sensible [destroyer escort, small destroyer, destroyer, missile destroyer, helicopter destroyer], but they still avoid the words 'cruiser' and 'carrier' like the plague.)

Fundamentally, the issue is that modern Japan isn't constitutionally allowed to have a navy (and other "military forces", 戦力/war potential being the exact word). So they need to jump through a few hoops with the terminology to "legal-loophole" around this. Otherwise Diet (Japanese parliament) members wouldn't approve the budget, and someone might even challenge it in court.

But yeah, it's still a de facto navy (and army and air force), especially after Abe forced the "assist allies" amendment through. Looks completely silly to foreigners though (especially the Chinese).