Why did the US Navy stop building Brooklyn-style cruiser hulls after USS Long Beach and switch to enlarged destroyer hulls for future cruiser classes (like the Virginia class for example)?
Why did the US Navy stop building Brooklyn-style cruiser hulls after USS Long Beach and switch to enlarged destroyer hulls for future cruiser classes ...
they figured out how to use the radar without the giant box.
I see, I have another question to add to that though. With the DDG(X) to serve as a replacement for the Ticos and early flight Burkes do you think it may serve as a new standard for destroyer designs with subsequent cruiser designs being larger than those or should the DDG(X) be seen as a sort of fusion of the destroyer/cruiser concept?
DDG(X) will be taking over the role of the Ticos, with the Constellations fulfilling more the destroyer role. However we will call DDG(X) a destroyer and the Constellations a Frigate for reasons.
If calling them destroyers means they get destroyer-sized crews, that's a major mistake. The entire point of cruisers is that their crewsize is optimized for long-endurance CRUISING missions, which require more then two-hundred people rounded up if you don't want collisions and running aground to attrition your quarter-billion dollar investment.
Whatever you call the CG's fodder is less important because they have all the prerequisite tenders and other auxiliary craft to service them. Frigates are fine.
>Constellations fulfilling more the destroyer role.
????
That's wrong. Just plain wrong.
You also don't know what you're talking about.
The role of destroyers have more or less morphed into cruisers since they both have extremely similar operational requirements.
It'll be interesting to see what new kind of ship eventually comes by to fulfill the cruiser tonnage niche.
>eventually comes by to fulfill the cruiser tonnage niche
Missile truck.
If we can bring back the CGN, Missile truck with lasers for zorching drones and skinnies.
Destroyers fill the cruiser tonnage requirement. Areligh Burke Class are more deplacment than the London Naval treaty’s maximum cruiser tonnage.
DDG(X) will likely be somewhere around 12,500 tons of displacement making them noticeably larger than Burkes and Ticos. The reason for this growth is a mild change in shipbuilding philosophy from the navy. The navy wants DDG(X) to be a platform rather than a system. It should be able to be accept a long list of potential future upgrades without necessarily knowing what those upgrades will be in advance. They don't want a repeat of the Burke situation where what systems can be developed are heavily constrained by the limitations of the hulls available to put them on. This necessitates more space to have a large growth margin.
Another important factor driving DDG(X)'s design is the aforementioned miniaturization of naval warfare technology. A Constellation class frigate has a radar more capable than the Ticos and Flight 1-IIA Burkes. You can pack a lot more capabilities into smaller hulls these days putting Burke-sized ships into a slightly awkward middle area where they're either too big or too small depending on how you look at them.
It would be more optimal to have a larger number of a "small destroyer" class somewhere <8,000 tons with Burke-class radars but half as many VLS and a smaller number of "large destroyers" with really top end systems. This sort of seems to be what the navy is pursuing long-term with the Flight II Constellations filling the "small destroyer/large frigate" role.
>DDG(X) will likely be somewhere around 12,500 tons
the 2022 proposed draft had it at around 13,500 without a DPM, with a DPM I think it would be closer to 15,000.
>A Constellation class frigate has a radar more capable than the Ticos and Flight 1-IIA Burkes
I notice that the frigate (at least in CGIs) doesn't have phased arrays like the Ticos and Burkes, am I right to assume it's cause the class is better off with traditional radar systems for its planned purposes?
Large phased arrays like the SPY series is usually just for Aegis destroyers for BMD purposes. I'm pretty sure the Constellations are just multipurpose AAW/ASW Frigates and don't need them.
The Constellation-class will have the AN/SPY-6(V)3 which should be better than the radar on Flight I and II burkes, though Flight IIa and later will be getting a larger version of the same radar which has larger arrays, and Flight III obviously gets the even larger AN/SPY-6(V)1.
So yeah, Constellation-class radar is better than older burkes as is, and when in a CSG there will be at least one Flight IIA or Flight III with a larger radar.
>I notice that the frigate (at least in CGIs) doesn't have phased arrays like the Ticos and Burkes
It does
It's the AN/SPY-6(V)3, which has 3 phased arrays, you can even see 2 of them in your picture and the 3rd is on the opposite side of the one seen to the rear in your picture.
>tfw my useless cunt didnt just partner with Amercia for this
>DDG(X)
I don't care what it does or what it costs. I just want it to carry a good name.
>Evans Class Destroyer
Has a good ring to it.
>George Floyd Class Destroyer
>George Floyd Class Destroyer
That would be an Army platform
> class specifically designed to destroy cities
Would be fitting for any sort of AIP-submarine.
Would make a good submarine name.
It would have to be a diesel boat, since nukes dob’t need to breathe
you joke but the navy really doesn't give a fuck what the ships are called. if they can trick congress into giving them money by building USS Karl Marx or USS Black lives matter then they'll do it. hell the navy still has USS John "I Hate naggers" C. Stennis in comission because the old coot was bffs with Ronald Reagan who was giving the navy fuckloads of money
There's a USS Harvey Milk, USS Caesar Chavez, USS Gabriel Gifford.
Only a matter of time. It's low-key demoralization by Democrat-dominated departments
Who cares? These are replenishment oilers and shit, just cargo ships.
It's not like the next CVN, DDG, FFG, SSN, or SSBN/SSGN are getting these shit-tier names.
I'm not even a vatnik or the like but it's just in bad taste/style and creates more division. They should just stick to navy war heroes/officers for new ship names and keep it simple.
it appeases congressional trannies from further meddling, give them a bone so they don't fuck with the combat ship naming schemes.
We live in a democratic Republic and nothing gets done without compromise. if that's the stupidest compromise to be made to get these ships afloat then so be it. Better that than an dysfunctional underfunded navy with too few ships that all have manly names.
no Navy heroes since WWII, that's why they're getting desperate.
Should just name them after fish and battles and shit, save the people names for heroes of the Sino-US war
oops
The latest Virginia-class boats have been named after fish again
Barb, Tang, Wahoo, and Silversides.
Though the next one was named after John H. Dalton, and the next two went back to being named after cities.
honestly the boats are the only thing with good names. I always liked that the 2 named parts of our triad (Boomers and B2s) were both named after states.
Is it wrong I think Trayvon Martin would make a good name for a ship class?
Smaller ships became more capable as technology improved making full sized cruisers less important. The destroyer derived "cruisers" were good enough while costing less.
They tonnage wasn't needed for armor and the heavy radar and computer equipment shrank rapidly in size
That being said we should have commissioned the Zumwalts as cruisers. They probably would have lived rather than being a class of 3.
Nah, early 2000s naval planning was a complete clown fiesta.
LCS and DDX were so fucking dumb, and everyone but the lobbyists/former admirals on marketing tour kept pointing it out.
Now the USN has a 20 year gap in small surface combatant, and practically zero high-end large surface combatants.
And the Zumwalts can't even mount the promised railgun, because that doesn't exist.
And they ditched all research into mounting navalized 155s, too.
Zumwalt was crippled from the start by congress mandating a gun system for shore bombardment
part of that was that the Navy had an 8" system on the back burner that COULD have gone into them.
And that concept of using a navalized 155 turret, which would arguably be the most flexible setup.
But, tehy wanted their shiny railgun. Which still doesn't work, and would not deliver meaningful advantages over the 155 shells that are being used today..
>part of that was that the Navy had an 8" system on the back burner that COULD have gone into them.
The railgun was never a part of the original development other than something thought of as a mid life refit. Congress getting involved with the SC-21 program fucked it utterly. Specifically boomers thinking that marines are going to be doing D-Day assault and need shore bombardment despite the navy showing them study after study that the complement of Tomahawks and it's successor could do the job better. Forcing these two massive guns onto the ship hampered it from the start.
LockMart wanted to offer the USN something akin to a naval GMLRS that could be quad-packed in a Mk 41. The admirals weren't interested.
What they ought to do is figure out a way to adapt the ground-launched SDBs into a VLS.
Congress quite literally mandated gun fire in the late 90s. The navy tried throughout the 90s with the SC21 program to get around it. As normal, most current problems in the world can be directly attributed to boomers.
I am incredibly surprised that Congress hasn’t forced the Navy to build and/or reactivate actual battleships.
They probably tried and the navy told congress we have money for aircraft carriers OR battleships, not both.
Essentially what happened in the 90s and early 2000s. The USN had to do multiple studies showing that modernizing and staffing for an updated Iowa and New Jersey were prohibitively expensive to the point that it was something like, it would cost the navy multiple submarines and a DESRON just to fund it. But boomers couldn't get over how MY PAPPY STORMED THE BEACHES AND HE ONLY SURVIVED AND CONTINUED THE FAMILY BECAUSE OF BATTLESHIP GUN FIRE! nonsense.
This. Washington is full of retards and draft dodging Boomers. They don't have a clue about how practical doctrine works. I feel sorry for the army. They're way more susceptible to the braindead whims of hicks and hacks.
See: every service rifle since Vietnam
>MY PAPPY STORMED THE BEACHES AND HE ONLY SURVIVED AND CONTINUED THE FAMILY BECAUSE OF BATTLESHIP GUN FIRE! nonsense.
To be fair though destroyers entirely survive on this type of inertia after the Falklands War showed how easily air power mogs them.
The DDG(X) is going to be the last surface combatant that isn't just a glorified landing pad for a self-contained weapon system, and it's going to ferry the unlucky souls entrusted with sailing it into the history books.
wish we had nuclear surface combatants again
It's funny how Long Beach still carried WW2 5" guns till the end of her life
>20 tons
Christ
>It's funny how Long Beach still carried WW2 5" guns till the end of her life
They installed the guns there because it became clear that launching Polaris missiles from surface ships would not be a requirement, and because Kennedy ordered them to put guns on every surface ship.
Sp yeah, 5" guns instead of SLBMs. Funny how that also works for surface launched.
>Long Beach still carried WW2 5
About that . . .
Source: Wikipedia's ass:
> The ship was originally designed with "all-missile" armament, but was fitted with two 5"/38 caliber gun mounts amidships on the orders of President John F. Kennedy.[citation needed]
I think the citation may be for the guns being added on JFK's orders, either way she most certainly did carry them, they're amidships
I feel silly with a side of blind
blame the peace dividend.
> Long Beach
Speaking of which . . .
> the box-like superstructure of the Long Beach contained the SCANFAR
> SCANFAR included SPS-32 and SPS-33 phased array radars
> precursors to the SPY-1 phased array radar (AEGIS)
> SCANFAR radar was temperamental
> mainly because it used vacuum tubes, lots of vacuum tubes
> in 1967
> during a shipyard overhaul
> Long Beach radar was converted from electronic tubes to solid state electronic boards
> converting to solid state lightened the superstructure by 20 tons.
>20t of vacuum tubes
that's a lot of 'cuum
Once you get DDG(X) with a DPM (destroyer payload module) or two inserted, what's really the difference between that and a cruiser?
Political opportunity.
Ordering a follow up class of destroyers sounds less expensive than ordering a new class of cruisers.
I bet we'll end up in a situation like with the Ticonderoga cruisers, literally built on the same hull as the contemporarysa DDs but called cruisers to close the 'cruiser gap'.
oh what could have been..
Long Beach gun placement annoys me. You basically have to turn the ship to a broadside if you ever want to hit something.
This was in an age before the USN used guided missiles for surface-to-surface attack too, so it was the ships main method of defending itself from vessels.