Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cruisers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cruisers

    Hello all. Quick question. Why cruisers at all anymore? Please forgive me if this is a simple sounding question, I'm a simple sounding guy.

  • #2
    Don't expect any new one's any time soon (primarily because of costs). Why one would want a cruiser is that it is larger, thus carries a larger battery of missiles and other weapons. The larger cruiser would be longer and thus would be capable of higher speeds (Long + high H.P. = high speed).

    Comment


    • #3
      Cruisers like the ones in WWII are all gone. The distinction between destroyers and cruisers is pretty much mission related these days, since modern US cruisers are not much bigger than the destroyers. I think the main surface combatant types going forward will be destroyers and frigates (which now range in size from small to large, like cruisers used to), with smaller patrol boats below frigates.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
        Cruisers like the ones in WWII are all gone. The distinction between destroyers and cruisers is pretty much mission related these days, since modern US cruisers are not much bigger than the destroyers. I think the main surface combatant types going forward will be destroyers and frigates (which now range in size from small to large, like cruisers used to), with smaller patrol boats below frigates.
        Wiskie,

        Don't the Ticos have improved C2 capability over the Burkes? Wouldn't this allow them to also function as command vessels in SWGs?
        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
        Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
          Wiskie,

          Don't the Ticos have improved C2 capability over the Burkes? Wouldn't this allow them to also function as command vessels in SWGs?
          AR, yes I believe the Tico's are more suited for task force command vessels and put more emphasis on Aegis and air/space control. As I understand it, they aren't quite as autonomous as the AB's and are intended to be used primarily in CBG's or other large group situations. As ships go they aren't much bigger, a little longer (~50'), but no heavier than the flight III AB's. That was the idea I was trying to express, that it is the role that differentiates a cruiser from a large destroyer today, not so much the hull design or size.

          When the Tico's wear out, I wonder if a new flight of AB with the same capacities that Tico's currently have would be a viable replacement option (more C2 and command office space at the expense of some of the multi-role capacities of the current types). This could provide more commonality in the servicing of ships, and parts availability.
          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 06 Dec 10,, 16:32.
          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

          Comment


          • #6
            Got it....that makes sense.
            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              AR, yes I believe the Tico's are more suited for task force command vessels and put more emphasis on Aegis and air/space control. As I understand it, they aren't quite as autonomous as the AB's and are intended to be used primarily in CBG's or other large group situations. As ships go they aren't much bigger, a little longer (~50'), but no heavier than the flight III AB's. That was the idea I was trying to express, that it is the role that differentiates a cruiser from a large destroyer today, not so much the hull design or size.
              I agree. This has all been discussed before, but since the change over to the new forum, the search function has been less than reliable. I remember someone commenting that although the Burke Destroyers are more survivable (ie. reduced radar cross section) the Ticonderoga Cruisers have been continously upgraded to ensure they posses the most advanced weapons systems in the fleet.

              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              When the Tico's wear out, I wonder if a new flight of AB with the same capacities that Tico's currently have would be a viable replacement option (more C2 and command office space at the expense of some of the multi-role capacities of the current types). This could provide more commonality in the servicing of ships, and parts availability.
              Again, there was a thread on this subject too. If I remember correctly, during the last QDR, the CG(X) was cancelled and replaced with a Burke Flight III design.

              Comment


              • #8
                Perhaps, Zumwalt (currently 30% complete) at 600 feet long and displacing about 15,000 tons and her two sisters should be classed as Cruisers? The Zumwalt's also offer larger missile tubes (in the PVLS) so it may adapt to future larger missiles that won't fit the current VLS, not to mention the larger AGS 155mm that can reach out 83 miles, merit a Cruiser classification.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                  Perhaps, Zumwalt (currently 30% complete) at 600 feet long and displacing about 15,000 tons and her two sisters should be classed as Cruisers? The Zumwalt's also offer larger missile tubes (in the PVLS) so it may adapt to future larger missiles that won't fit the current VLS, not to mention the larger AGS 155mm that can reach out 83 miles, merit a Cruiser classification.
                  No, I don't agree. As has been stated, it's not about the size of the warship anymore, it's classification has more to do with its intended role and missions. The Zumwalts (and I believe the have cut funding down to only 2 vessels now) were originally built primary for the land attack role, making the Destroyer name approprioate.

                  With only 2 vessels being built, I expect these ships to be more test beds for their new systems/equipment/weapons/engineering then actual warships, but we shall see.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Cruisers were originally ships that had long range, good firepower, and decent armor. They were the power projection force for the empire while the prized battleships were held in reserve. Frigate was a type of ship and cruiser was the function. So we had frigates performing as cruisers during the age of sail. Then cruiser became a type of ship and frigate (the sailing vessel) fell out of favor during the age of steam.

                    In the early 20th century, cruisers were defined as ships with medium guns, medium armor, good speed, and long range. Destroyers were to chase away torpedo boats, and later subs, away from battleships. They had no armor since no amount of armor would protect them from torpedoes.

                    Now we classify warships based on political expediency. The reds have cruisers. Why didn't we? Let's pass a law to re-classify our "frigates" as cruisers and classify our new 10000t destroyer as cruisers to make up that gap. Cruisers sound really big, and therefore, expensive. So let's call our new 7000t multi purpose warship with long range land attack capability and complete 3D combat suite a "destroyer."

                    All major surface combatants today are multi-purpose warships. Some more multi than others. They should be refered to by tonnage and purpose, like a 6000t multi-purpose combatant or a 3000t anti-sub combatant.
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I am no naval expert. However, I think one can look at this the same way one can look at tanks.
                      During WW2 we had light, medium, and heavy tanks. However, as tank's became more sophisticated, you could do away with light and heavy tanks, and just have a medium tank that was as fast as a light tank, and as powerful as a heavy tank. These are now called MBT, or main battle tank.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        we could do what the media does: call them all "battleships" :exit:
                        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Three Zumwalts are scheduled to be built at this time. A Zumwalt could most likely win a gun fight against a WWII Cruiser. So, I think it could "win" the title of Cruiser. The Zumwalts will weigh nearly as much as the WWII carrier CV-4 USS Ranger.
                          Last edited by surfgun; 08 Dec 10,, 04:31.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                            Three Zumwalts are scheduled to be built at this time. A Zumwalt could most likely win a gun fight against a WWII Cruiser. So, I think it could "win" the title of Cruiser. The Zumwalts will weigh nearly as much as the WWII carrier CV-4 USS Ranger.
                            A Zumwalt could also most likely sink a WWII battleship, albeit with missles, without the battleship ever even knowing it existed. That does not make it a battleship.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was not talking missiles. Guns versus guns only. What other large modern warship could boast of such a feat? Certainly, not a Ticonderoga Class.
                              Last edited by surfgun; 08 Dec 10,, 16:24.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X