Washington/London Naval Treaties
- Thread starter TheDS
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
While reading around for this thread it struck me that the 'cruiser' is in danger of extinction.
Frigates are still here, and the more sexy destroyer name may carry on for another century or six, but no one is building new cruisers.
Frigates are still here, and the more sexy destroyer name may carry on for another century or six, but no one is building new cruisers.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
How large an fleet air defence ship do you need? Destroyers already have hit the ten thousand tonne mark, guided missile submarines can get to their targets stealthier, and aircraft faster.
I think the label is being avoided for political/budgetary reasons more than anything else. No one is building anything they choose call a cruiser but there are plenty of new hulls whose size, role, and mission(s) are sure "cruiser-ish".
Look at the USS Zumwalt DDG-1000 or, as I like to call her, "Our Kinunir". She displaces 14,600 tons. That's the same size as the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, actually bigger than the Oregon City-class heavies, and only slightly smaller than the Des Moines-class heavies. Hell, Zumwalt is only 4,000 tons smaller than HMS Dreadnought herself and yet it's a "destroyer".
A further example of this "name shell game" are the many "amphibious assault", "sea control", and "helicopter carriers" in service worldwide. Not too many decades ago, those ships would have been called "aviation cruisers".
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Lol, chalk up another key board kill
Cruiser began as a mission designation for sloops and frigates, it later became a ship class of convenience and political expedience.
It is almost fitting that it should disappear as a class type for the same reasons it became one
I think we will be stuck with destroyer for a long time.
Lol, chalk up another key board kill
Thought you'd like it.
Cruiser began as a mission designation for sloops and frigates, it later became a ship class of convenience and political expedience. It is almost fitting that it should disappear as a class type for the same reasons it became one
That's a very cogent point.
I wonder when, if, or why the label "cruiser" will ever be fashionable again.
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
Its almost as big as Mikasa, the Japanese flagship at Tsushima (Mikasa 15,140 long tons vs Zumwalt 14,564 long tons), which was a state of the art (pre0dreadnought) battleship in 1902 when it was commissioned.
for comparison, a contempory destroyer class (Harusame class) was 435 tons at full load.
all weights are as per Wiki.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Cruiser tended to be over used: starcruiser, patrol cruiser, pleasure cruiser, cruise ship.
At some point, there'll be another weight gain by frigates, and destroyers will be too expensive.
Though, the current Japanese destroyer carriers are aviation cruisers.
At some point, there'll be another weight gain by frigates, and destroyers will be too expensive.
Though, the current Japanese destroyer carriers are aviation cruisers.
Agreed.
Yes. more than likely. Changes in technology can drive sizes in both directions however.
I've been trying to explain for years now how "class" is only loosely coupled to "size". Class somewhat determines mission(s). Mission(s) denotes certain capabilities. Capabilities require certain equipment. Equipment demands a certain displacement.
The RN circa 1900 had a class of cruisers larger than contemporaneous battleships. Those cruisers' mission required a certain speed and endurance which in turn mandated engineering plant and bunkerage of a certain size. Add a cruiser's armor and weapons and you ended up with a ship larger than a battleship.
Electrical generation requirements also increased size. When the Iowas were recommissioned in the '80s, they had to carry diesel generators because existing steam-driven generation plants didn't produce enough juice for all the retrofitted electronics they'd been tricked out with.
Another example of mission>capability>equipment>size bloat are carriers. Current CVNs are behemoths mostly due to the numbers and performance of the jets they carry while the current America-class amphibious assault helo carriers are over twice the size of WW2's Enterprise.
All that being said, technology can drive size down too. The USN only builds steam plants with reactors because gas turbines are smaller, faster, cheaper, better, etc. and provide a larger amount of propulsion/electricity for a given displacement.
The continued development of drones could have a similar effect. Jets drove the development of "super carriers" and helos mean even frigates need a hanger, landing deck, and whatnot. When manned aircraft are no longer used as often or even at all how big will a "carrier" need to be?
An excellent example. For whatever reason, Japan's Diet and SDF aren't skittish of the cruiser label.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Aircraft carrier and cruiser may sound too offensive (orientated) for a self defence force.
And apparently, deliberately or not, Lockheed Lightning Bees don't fit in the hangar.
And apparently, deliberately or not, Lockheed Lightning Bees don't fit in the hangar.
Garyius2003
SOC-13
Japan's Helicopter Destroyers, for historic reasons.
The US Navy's new ESD/ESBs are being kept as USNS ships (not commissioned) for budget and manning reasons, which will lead to some legal issues later on.
We call the Kirovs BCGNs. Russians call it a heavy missile cruiser. It suits them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser
I expect DEW-equipped ships to get the cruiser designation, just for the large power fit that would replace most SAM batteries.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Zumwalts are probably as large as surface major combatants will go, with an increased emphasis on stealthier submarines by everyone.
The Russians might inflate their frigates in the next round, and pack them with weapon systems, but they'll have trouble maintaining anything larger, let alone building them.
The Russians might inflate their frigates in the next round, and pack them with weapon systems, but they'll have trouble maintaining anything larger, let alone building them.
If you have ever tried to design a J-6 combat ship in HG you rapidly find that you are in the million ton range but mounting only a modest weapon payload, and dropping the maneuver drive one level lets you stay inside the 75kton break point you do it.
So J-6 M-5 with a J-meson at 60,000 Dt while a J4 ship with 6G's drops in at about 20,000 Dt (rough estimates here not stating I can make good designs at these performance levels)
What is telling is that the J-6 "light cruiser" is 3 times as likely to be hit than the J-4 version, less agility and bigger has it's penalty, but the advantage is greater strategic mobility.
As a designer for TCS tourney, I did not like putting J-6 6 agility ships into battle: way to expensive for the bang. However I see a need for ships that are J-6 6 Agility within the imperium, and that is getting to the target system and developing intelligence about the opposition forces in time to have messages available to the fleet commander as they approach the target system.
One might term this mission as scouting, but it could also be the job of denying the enemy refueling sources by destruction or occupation of the facility. Getting there first with something that can handle a minor skirmish might just win the battle later when the fleet arrives.
So J-6 M-5 with a J-meson at 60,000 Dt while a J4 ship with 6G's drops in at about 20,000 Dt (rough estimates here not stating I can make good designs at these performance levels)
What is telling is that the J-6 "light cruiser" is 3 times as likely to be hit than the J-4 version, less agility and bigger has it's penalty, but the advantage is greater strategic mobility.
As a designer for TCS tourney, I did not like putting J-6 6 agility ships into battle: way to expensive for the bang. However I see a need for ships that are J-6 6 Agility within the imperium, and that is getting to the target system and developing intelligence about the opposition forces in time to have messages available to the fleet commander as they approach the target system.
One might term this mission as scouting, but it could also be the job of denying the enemy refueling sources by destruction or occupation of the facility. Getting there first with something that can handle a minor skirmish might just win the battle later when the fleet arrives.
Ahh the classic raider, forgot about them, that mission would need sensor drones and missiles for stand off operations without entering gun range.
Ship, drones and missiles would have the best stealth systems available to the polity, likely to be totally unarmored though. Generally my raiders have a J-6 drop tank and J-2 internal fuel 1000Dt size with a single missile bay. Show up intensive fire the missiles and withdraw by jump, useless till it meets up with the fleet train for another drop tank and missile supply.
TCS turneys are quite artifical situations, where all ships must meet required criteria.
In a war, I guess a J6 squadron would mainly be a raider one, mostly used in hit and run raids. As such, the most likely opposition it would face is in form of planetary defense fletes (ostly SDB/Monitors), as it is not expected to run into enemy fleet units, so being in a disadvantage in this way (OTOH I guess it would be sent where those forces are handicapped in other ways, mostly due to lower TLs).
Project Blackheart and the Nemesis-class.
Jump6 range for strategic mobility and penetration. Six parsec tankage for jump6 range and for "boomerang" fuel shorter jump raids.
