Reviving Cruisers? (And cruisers from non-US naval doctrines)

[the concerned]

The thing I thought you could do with a cruiser is increase the helicopter capacity thus alleviating the cv's to carry them giving them more space for offensive armament. I also think because of the power available to Cv's that's the platform that should be armed with the first lasers

 

[gf0012-aust]

The thing I thought you could do with a cruiser is increase the helicopter capacity thus alleviating the cv's to carry them giving them more space for offensive armament. I also think because of the power available to Cv's that's the platform that should be armed with the first lasers

CV's?

if its carriers why follow the failed russian model?

all of which has been comprehensively discussed in here already

 

[Torlek]

The thing I thought you could do with a cruiser is increase the helicopter capacity thus alleviating the cv's to carry them giving them more space for offensive armament.

In other words, a cruiser between a Moskva-class helicopter carrier and a Kiev-class aviation cruiser? That's interesting.

 

[the concerned]

Wasn't there a study of a variant of the San Antonio warship maybe something along them lines with a capacity of 4-6 helicopters.

 

[John Fedup]

Wasn't there a study of a variant of the San Antonio warship maybe something along them lines with a capacity of 4-6 helicopters.

I think you are referring to the planned LR(X) amphibious ships.

https://news.usni.org/2014/10/20/me...navys-preferred-option-next-generation-amphib

 

[Torlek]

I think you are referring to the planned LR(X) amphibious ships.

They're too light for the cruiser role, though.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They're too light for the cruiser role, though.

Light??

they're more than double the displacement of the Ticonderogas, and are double the displacement of the Moskva

cruisers are not about weight anyway - its about role - and most of those roles are now done by the heavier guided missile destroyers such as the Burkes (which is why there's no rush by the USN to build role replacements for the Ticos

 

[Torlek]

Light??

they're more than double the displacement of the Ticonderogas, and are double the displacement of the Moskva

cruisers are not about weight anyway - its about role - and most of those roles are now done by the heavier guided missile destroyers such as the Burkes (which is why there's no rush by the USN to build role replacements for the Ticos

Just because they have double the displacement doesn't mean they're built to perform the multi-purpose roles performed by cruisers.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just because they have double the displacement doesn't mean they're built to perform the multi-purpose roles performed by cruisers.

Perhaps rereading the quoted comment again would be helpful. I marked the relevant portion in bold.

cruisers are not about weight anyway - its about role - and most of those roles are now done by the heavier guided missile destroyers such as the Burkes (which is why there's no rush by the USN to build role replacements for the Ticos

It is very much about role. Is there a particular role which the USN's cruisers perform/performed, which is;

1. Still needed?
2. Not performed by other vessels?
3. And/or performed better by a cruiser?

Given that the USN has not ordered a replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CG, that does strongly suggest that there is nothing specifically unique or advantageous to the USN to introduce a new/replacement class of cruiser to the fleet. The roles which need to be covered are still being met, but by other platforms and through other means.

 

[colay1]

Late last year the USN submitted its Fleet Architecture Study to Congress which discusses the move toward a Distributed Fleet capable of executing the Distributed Lethality Concept. There is mention of up to 6 notional DDGH hulls being acquired by 2030 which some might see as a New Age cruiser.

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/document-u-s-navy-fleet-architecture-study

•DDGH: This ship has characteristics generally similar to the DDG Flt III including a robust air and missile defense radar (AMDR). The differences from current DDGs are that it: 1) has only has a forward missile launch system which can be rearmed at sea, 2) is High Velocity Projectile (HVP) capable, 3) has an increase in aviation assets for up to six vertical takeoff aircraft –notionally 2 helos and 4 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) due to the absence of an aft missile launch system. This provides organic continuous long range ISR, and 4) ASW system that leverages the LCS ASW mission module capabilities.

 

[vonnoobie]

So judging by the study, the cancelled CG(X) program and no plan's for a replacement program in sight at all the USN see's no need what so ever for a cruiser armed purely as a surface combatant because that role is already filled quite nicely by the Burkes while the San Antonio class LPD already has a high amount of unofficial support to be made into a BMD ship should the need for a more powerful radar be required.

As it is even the Destroyer and Frigate terminologies might be mute when you consider both are increasingly covering each others respective past roles, Most now are simply surface combatants with better skills in one area but still able to perform most/all tasks.

 

[ASSAIL]

The Centre for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments (CBSA) have submitted their proposal for the restoration of US Seapower and the following quite lengthy link is very insightful.
In short, they believe that the USN is top heavy in large surface combatants, Ticos and ABs and needs a more balanced approach iaw the distributed lethality model by moving to a larger number of euro Frigate size ships, they consider more SSNs are needed and a move towards a 40,000 ton CVL whilst maintaining the 11 or 12 CVNs.
Worth the time to watch as it disagrees with the USN proposal but not hugely. This is one of a number of submissions to shape the future USN but worthy IMHO.

https://youtu.be/l9PRKI8cDn0

 

[colay1]

Theres the Navy study, CSBA study and the MITRE study. Interesting to see what falls out in the end. I'm guessing the most affordable approach wins.

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/trio-of-studies-look-to-the-u-s-navy-fleet-of-2030

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just because they have double the displacement doesn't mean they're built to perform the multi-purpose roles performed by cruisers.

continue reading my original response....

edit

and note the response from everyone else as well as the last half of my response.

your response ignored all the critical issues about platform roles and more importantly, what deficiencies you think need addressing

in the current force development model where is the need for a cruiser?
what do you think the role of the cruiser is in contemp terms?
what elements of the cruisers capability aren't addressed anywhere in the typical force response etc.....

platform planning is also about force planning - so where in the conops of the platform or the atypical force element do you see capability gap and the need for a cruiser?

more to the point - what constitutes a cruiser? - in absolute terms its a redundant platform

 

[Volkodav]

Late last year the USN submitted its Fleet Architecture Study to Congress which discusses the move toward a Distributed Fleet capable of executing the Distributed Lethality Concept. There is mention of up to 6 notional DDGH hulls being acquired by 2030 which some might see as a New Age cruiser.

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/document-u-s-navy-fleet-architecture-study

•DDGH: This ship has characteristics generally similar to the DDG Flt III including a robust air and missile defense radar (AMDR). The differences from current DDGs are that it: 1) has only has a forward missile launch system which can be rearmed at sea, 2) is High Velocity Projectile (HVP) capable, 3) has an increase in aviation assets for up to six vertical takeoff aircraft –notionally 2 helos and 4 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) due to the absence of an aft missile launch system. This provides organic continuous long range ISR, and 4) ASW system that leverages the LCS ASW mission module capabilities.

Swings and roundabouts, this sounds an awful lot like the Escort Cruiser concept of the 1960s for the RN, that eventually evolved into the Invincible Class Through Deck Cruiser. I wonder how long before the USN DDGH evolves into a Hyuga type DDH or even a CGH, with periferal VLS outboard of the island and aft, leaving a clear flight deck.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Swings and roundabouts, this sounds an awful lot like the Escort Cruiser concept of the 1960s for the RN, that eventually evolved into the Invincible Class Through Deck Cruiser. I wonder how long before the USN DDGH evolves into a Hyuga type DDH or even a CGH, with periferal VLS outboard of the island and aft, leaving a clear flight deck.

I think the USN would be pretty congnisant of all the problems that other navies have faced wrt to larger ships and budget constraints

nobody will be asking for a cruiser - the Hornet/Shornet model springs to mind. sleight of hand and successful they just have to be careful they swing the other way and end up with the opprobrium laid on thick for LCS

thank god the USN never went down the PLS route.

 

[protoplasm]

I think the USN would be pretty congnisant of all the problems that other navies have faced wrt to larger ships and budget constraints

nobody will be asking for a cruiser - the Hornet/Shornet model springs to mind. sleight of hand and successful they just have to be careful they swing the other way and end up with the opprobrium laid on thick for LCS

thank god the USN never went down the PLS route.

Sorry for the ignorance gf, what's PLS stand for?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry for the ignorance gf, what's PLS stand for?

Peripheral Launch System (as opposed to peripheral vertical launch system)

favoured by the russians and also typically used on chinese and indian vessels as at the time the russians hadn't worked out how to build VLS and elected to add them sides of the superstructure/citadel etc....

eg the launchers were fixed, angled and usually bolted along the walkways...

the design also meant that they invariably couldn't reload as there was no reload magazine etc.....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Otlichnyy2.jpg/220px-Otlichnyy2.jpg

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&...eUr22gX1UbQEpJIYy6pbRDaQ&ust=1489029062137253

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&...bHcBf0hRl_CkBaehE7uLqM7Q&ust=1489029073161058



I reckon handling would have been iffy as well as the centre of gravity would have been changed. so heeling over/flank speed would have been exciting

 

[protoplasm]

Peripheral Launch System (as opposed to peripheral vertical launch system)

favoured by the russians and also typically used on chinese and indian vessels as at the time the russians hadn't worked out how to build VLS and elected to add them sides of the superstructure/citadel etc....

eg the launchers were fixed, angled and usually bolted along the walkways...

the design also meant that they invariably couldn't reload as there was no reload magazine etc.....

I reckon handling would have been iffy as well as the centre of gravity would have been changed. so heeling over/flank speed would have been exciting

I need to read more, but it strikes me as being a total PITA as, as you say, reloading isn't possible, eveything is at an angle, making general work on the ship just that much harder, and then you end up with issues beacause the CofG is up that much higher. The only way around it is to then introduce other design compromises.

 

[gf0012-aust]

do an image search on "soviet guided missile destroyer"

stacks of examples