Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_UH-1Y_4516-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-35B_5220-1.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_1778-1.jpg

Yuma_17_PT-17_3864-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







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

This is a discussion on Reviving Cruisers? (And cruisers from non-US naval doctrines) within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; So judging by the study, the cancelled CG(X) program and no plan's for a replacement program in sight at all ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #31
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 663
Threads:
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.
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #32
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,763
Threads:
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
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #33
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 273
Threads:
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/tri...-fleet-of-2030
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #34
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torlek View Post
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
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #35
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,220
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
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/doc...itecture-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.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #36
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #37
Junior Member
Private First Class
protoplasm's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 76
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
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?
protoplasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #38
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by protoplasm View Post
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/wikiped...Otlichnyy2.jpg

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&r...89029062137253

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&r...89029073161058



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
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #39
Junior Member
Private First Class
protoplasm's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 76
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
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.
protoplasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #40
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
do an image search on "soviet guided missile destroyer"

stacks of examples
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #41
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,778
Threads:
Or visit our very own image gallery.

EDIT: gf0012 this isn't necessarily directed to the original prompt but, how do you think the lack of a true universal VLS will affect Russia's ability to design future destroyer-class vessels? As it stands they have two separate VLS designs, one for SAMs and the other for land-attack and anti-ship. And to top it off their current SAM VLS isn't compatible (to the best of my knowledge) with the S-300/400 family (unclear whether it has any compatibility with the S-500). Essentially you can see it in the design for the 22350s where they have to plan for two separate areas with VLS cells of different type and size.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #42
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post

EDIT: gf0012 this isn't necessarily directed to the original prompt but, how do you think the lack of a true universal VLS will affect Russia's ability to design future destroyer-class vessels? As it stands they have two separate VLS designs, one for SAMs and the other for land-attack and anti-ship. And to top it off their current SAM VLS isn't compatible (to the best of my knowledge) with the S-300/400 family (unclear whether it has any compatibility with the S-500). Essentially you can see it in the design for the 22350s where they have to plan for two separate areas with VLS cells of different type and size.
always found it surprising that russians hadn't dealt with this formally

having a standard VLS also forces them to design a core missile family - and that's probably why they haven't done it as they has such a broad range of missiles and not a lot of dimensional commonality

seemed strange to me that for a country that had a good missile development history that they hadn't managed to sort out standardised launchers etc.....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #43
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,220
Threads:
I was thinking more the VLS set up on the DDG 1000 and proposed for the San Antonio (LPD-17) based CG proposal, located starboard/outboard or the (starboard located) island, to physically separate the VLS from the flight deck. Also an after located VLS situated in a notched out quaterdeck, would aslo separate those units from the flight deck as helicopters and even USMC F-35 (as far as I am aware) are planned to come in along side the deck on the port side then move starboard for landing.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #44
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by protoplasm View Post
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.

also made worse by the fact that when they retrofitted old vessels with flank launchers they also invariably had power generation problems and had to add extra generation.

expensive refits for basically a hail mary response
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #45
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,778
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
always found it surprising that russians hadn't dealt with this formally

having a standard VLS also forces them to design a core missile family - and that's probably why they haven't done it as they has such a broad range of missiles and not a lot of dimensional commonality

seemed strange to me that for a country that had a good missile development history that they hadn't managed to sort out standardised launchers etc.....
Yes, yes, of course, but my actual question is, how would this impact their ability to design a destroyer? Could the lack of a standard missile family and universal VLS be the reason that they're forced to go so large with the OKR Leader?

OKR Leader started out, very definitely, as a destroyer concept, in the 8000-1000 tonn range.

EDIT: Actually this is now relevant to the original topic. I'm wondering if Russia is again ending up with a heavy cruiser because of the inability to accommodate the necessary contents within a smaller hull.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:53 PM.