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

Torlek

New Member
The most recent US Navy internal report, CSBA study, and MITRE study all envision a more expensive US Navy in the future.

Only the third study sees a role for cruisers. The second does away with cruisers altogether. The first study is more or less status quo, but the Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally designated as destroyers.

Meanwhile, all three reports call for building light aircraft carriers (CVL or CV-LX, depending on the report).

Because all three reports are not as budget-constrained as today's navy budget, couldn't a US Navy with more large surface combatants revive actual cruisers, including for its carrier strike groups (CSGs), so as to distinguish them from destroyers? Today's destroyers are a jack of most trades, but master of none. There are no US large surface combatants out there that are a jack of all trades, but master of anywhere between some and many (if not most).

Advantages:

- Flag / command-and-control (C&C) capabilities
- Greater systems redundancy
- Potential for stronger hulls
- More room for a lot more vertical launch systems (VLS)
- More room for laser weapon systems (LWS) and other directed energy weapon systems (DEWS)
- Could have heavier railguns mounted
- Could (not necessarily should) be nuclear-powered, thus being consistent with the historical, long-range role of cruisers in comparison to destroyers

Two cruiser types from non-US naval doctrines come to mind, due to have more distinction from destroyers than traditional US cruisers: the heavy guided missile cruiser (CG) and the aviation cruiser (CAV). A heavy CG in a Ford CSG is a significantly more potent and flexible weapons platform than a destroyer, with greater survivability. Meanwhile, an aviation cruiser without aircraft would still be a more potent and flexible weapons platform than a destroyer, with greater survivability. With aircraft, an aviation cruiser in a Ford CSG would be quite comparable to a light aircraft carrier.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The most recent US Navy internal report, CSBA study, and MITRE study all envision a more expensive US Navy in the future.

Only the third study sees a role for cruisers. The second does away with cruisers altogether. The first study is more or less status quo, but the Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally designated as destroyers.

Meanwhile, all three reports call for building light aircraft carriers (CVL or CV-LX, depending on the report).

Because all three reports are not as budget-constrained as today's navy budget, couldn't a US Navy with more large surface combatants revive actual cruisers, including for its carrier strike groups (CSGs), so as to distinguish them from destroyers? Today's destroyers are a jack of most trades, but master of none. There are no US large surface combatants out there that are a jack of all trades, but master of anywhere between some and many (if not most).

Advantages:

- Flag / command-and-control (C&C) capabilities
- Greater systems redundancy
- Potential for stronger hulls
- More room for a lot more vertical launch systems (VLS)
- More room for laser weapon systems (LWS) and other directed energy weapon systems (DEWS)
- Could have heavier railguns mounted
- Could (not necessarily should) be nuclear-powered, thus being consistent with the historical, long-range role of cruisers in comparison to destroyers

Two cruiser types from non-US naval doctrines come to mind, due to have more distinction from destroyers than traditional US cruisers: the heavy guided missile cruiser (CG) and the aviation cruiser (CAV). A heavy CG in a Ford CSG is a significantly more potent and flexible weapons platform than a destroyer, with greater survivability. Meanwhile, an aviation cruiser without aircraft would still be a more potent and flexible weapons platform than a destroyer, with greater survivability. With aircraft, an aviation cruiser in a Ford CSG would be quite comparable to a light aircraft carrier.
the role of the cruiser over time has changed - from initially being air defence for the capital ships, merchant hunter/killer, etc.....

the air defence role evolved into air warfare which is now the role of GM frigates

the question is always about what unique capabilities need to go into a larger platform and warrant doing so

any modern air warfare roled frigate is far more capable and could outrange, outfight and throw more weapons into a tighter space than the heavy cruisers post war

so the fundamentals are for precision, projection, persistence, power, provision

I'm not sure there is anything unique that a cruiser could bring to the mix when a lot of capability already exists in the contemp frigates and destroyers - and that for 2 cruisers you could buy 3-4 of the former which are just as capable.

carriers, amphibs are default flags - and the TF commander will flag on any vessel of his choice. again contemp detroyers and frigates are pretty well eared up under the evolving changes driven by joint requirements, and by a lot of modern militaries shifting to network centric and CEC enabled platforms across the fleet, across a task force, at the transoceanic level and also in the 6 fighting dimensions
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
the role of the cruiser over time has changed - from initially being air defence for the capital ships, merchant hunter/killer, etc.....

the air defence role evolved into air warfare which is now the role of GM frigates

the question is always about what unique capabilities need to go into a larger platform and warrant doing so

any modern air warfare roled frigate is far more capable and could outrange, outfight and throw more weapons into a tighter space than the heavy cruisers post war

so the fundamentals are for precision, projection, persistence, power, provision

I'm not sure there is anything unique that a cruiser could bring to the mix when a lot of capability already exists in the contemp frigates and destroyers - and that for 2 cruisers you could buy 3-4 of the former which are just as capable.

carriers, amphibs are default flags - and the TF commander will flag on any vessel of his choice. again contemp detroyers and frigates are pretty well eared up under the evolving changes driven by joint requirements, and by a lot of modern militaries shifting to network centric and CEC enabled platforms across the fleet, across a task force, at the transoceanic level and also in the 6 fighting dimensions
There will probably rapidly evolving designs in the next century of 'motherships' to host autonomous systems, perhaps the cruisers fate is to become a long range, combatant mothership platform.

You would need a large ship with lot's of space that can be reconfigured, large electrical, network & IT capacity. Destroyers and frigates tend to be packed to the gills, so a larger cruiser sized platform built from the outset to support autonomous system, built as a combatant and still carrying it's own guns & missiles might be attractive proposition.

Added- the really hard bit is 'knowing' what sort of autonomous systems the ship would be asked to support in the next 50 years. You would have to make some significant 'guesstimates'. Tough if you don't have a crystal ball.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There will probably rapidly evolving designs in the next century of 'motherships' to host autonomous systems, perhaps the cruisers fate is to become a long range, combatant mothership platform.

You would need a large ship with lot's of space that can be reconfigured, large electrical, network & IT capacity. Destroyers and frigates tend to be packed to the gills, so a larger cruiser sized platform built from the outset to support autonomous system, built as a combatant and still carrying it's own guns & missiles might be attractive proposition.

ah, but there is the distributed lethality model - which has far more relevance as to use the USN exemplar philosophy of CEC etc....

fighting in the 6 dimensions means that platforms can fight on their own if need be as they have a virtual SAG next to them etc....

bang for buck lies in less platform types but more capable platforms within the class of type

a more capable cruiser is probably closer in line with the japanese flat top cruiser concept in extremis....
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Cruisers or whatever you want to call a ship class bigger then destroyers, could bring ASAT and strategic BMD capabilities.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Modern GP frigates are the cruisers of today when you look at their roles within fleets, in fact, go back to the 19th century and the ships primarily conducting "cruiser" roles were actually called frigates, which is where the USN got the idea of calling the post war DL/DLGs (Destroyer Leaders) Frigates while the British called their similarly sized and capability County Class missile ships "Destroyers" and the Soviets called theirs "Cruisers".

At the beginning of the 20th century cruisers ranged in size from large destroyers/destroyer leaders/scouts (as small as 2000 tons), through slightly larger fleet cruisers (2-4000 tons), through protected or "light" cruisers (4-6000 tons), then finally the Armoured Cruisers that eventually evolved into battlecruisers (over 10,000tons but some up near 20,000 tons). But for the Washington Treaty in 1921 there would have been no 10,000 treaty cruisers, rather the major fleets depending upon their needs would have continued building 15,000 ton plus armoured/large cruisers and smaller trade protection and fleet cruisers, some of which would have overlapped with destroyers, other with battle cruisers.

On the air defence side of things cruisers became the go to ships because the large and heavy mechanical/analogue computers required for effective direction of heavy AA batteries required large volumes simply not available in smaller hulls. Pre war RN plans included fitting the latest AA fire controls to Armed Merchant Cruisers, i.e. converted ocean liners etc. because they had the required volume and deck space for the directors and guns. This said as more compact systems were developed more and more smaller ships were fitted but generally they were limited to how many aircraft they could target by the number of directors and computers rather than the number of guns. Thus an RN AA cruiser conversion of a C/D class cruiser was a more effective AA platform than a large destroyer with an outwardly similar/identical armament as the cruisers had two fire control channels permitting simultaneous engagement of two targets.

Destroyers, frigates, sloops, corvettes, DEs, sub chasers etc. ruled ASW because of the manoeuvrability required to engage subs with depth charges. With the development of ahead throwing ASW weapons such as Hedgehog, Squid and later, Limbo and Weapon Alfa stand off ASW became possible and navies started to deploy larger GP escorts and even ASW "cruisers". ASROC, Ikara and the various Soviet systems made even larger WWII cruiser sized ships effective in ASW, in fact the very large bow sonars and the size and weight of towed and variable depth arrays, as well as helicopters made big ships a must.

IMO cruisers are still very much with us, they are just called different things.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Cruisers or whatever you want to call a ship class bigger then destroyers, could bring ASAT and strategic BMD capabilities.
You can get the BMD capability with with destroyers, especially those in the 7 - 8,000 tonne range. The South Koreans have an AEGIS destroyer with BMD capability. regarding ASAT capability, that may require a larger ship, but then again it may not. GF would know more about that side of it.

The interesting thing is that the criteria for the label of cruiser has changed over time. During WW2 it usually was a ship of 4 - 6,000 tonnes with 6in guns being a light cruiser and one > 6,000 tonnes or so with 8in guns being a heavy cruiser. RN destroyers then were around 2,500 tonnes and frigates 1,500 tonnes. Now a USN DDG is around 9,000 tonne and a non US frigate reaching 7,000 tonnes. I would argue that the cruiser, per se, may be a class of ship looking for a mission in some navies. From my POV I think that the cruiser as a class of ship in the USN is a dying class, because most, if not all, of it's capability sets and raison d' etre have been acquired by other classes of ships.
 

colay1

Member
IMO a key justification for a new Cruiser would be its ability to host a larger S-band AMDR for enhanced BMD capability. Flight III Burkes will come with SPY-6 (14-ft) which is said to offer 30X the performance of SPY-1 which is a major upgrade. The cancelled CG-X was to have a 22-ft radar which would have allowed it to detect and discriminate targets at much greater ranges which is highly desirable for BMD.

Perhaps the bigger radar may actually materialize on a platform but not on a cruiser. The Navy will be standardizing on AMDR-based S-band radar for CVN 79 onwards and big-deck amphibs built after LHA-8.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
From my POV I think that the cruiser as a class of ship in the USN is a dying class, because most, if not all, of it's capability sets and raison d' etre have been acquired by other classes of ships.
Yep, tend to agree, I think the Cruiser is a class of ship that is looking for a home, a home that is now occupied too.

When the US started to replace the 4500t CFA's, with the much larger 8000t Spruance class, the lines certainly started to blur.

Yes of course the slightly larger and bigger displacement Ticonderoga class grew out of Spruance, but you could almost call them Destroyers on 'steroids' to a degree, once the new benchmark was set by Spruance.

Today when you look at the various larger AEGIS ships, the latest Flight III DDG-51's are closer to 10,000t, the Japanese are around that too, and the South Korean, Sejong the Great class are 11,000t and 165m in length.

And we've even had the three 14,000t Zumwalt's too, but putting them aside, it's reasonable to assume that a DDG of the future is going to be a minimum of 10,000t and beyond.

The Future Frigates for the RAN are all going to be around 7000t or more too.

Probably the last hold out of Cruiser's is in the Russian Navy, the one remaining Kirov at 28,000t and the three 12,500t Slava's, but realistically, will they ever be replaced by similar? Probably not.

I think when the last of the 'current' cruisers are gone, the replacements won't be called cruisers, wait and see!
 

r3mu511

New Member
The South Koreans have an AEGIS destroyer with BMD capability.
it's actually the Japanese who currently have bmd-capable ships with their kongo-class (ref: CRS report RL33745 10/25/2016 "Navy BMD Program" for chronicle of bmd tests which involved Japan's ships)... for SoKor, it's still a planned item for them to get bmd (ref: https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers)

for anti-sat, current aegis bmd-capable ships have at least a demonstrated LEO'ish (at the low end) anti-sat capability as shown by the shootdown of the US-193 satellite by USS Lake Erie back in 2008 (see MDA aegis bmd operation "Burnt Frost" 02/20/2008)

---

Flight III Burkes will come with SPY-6 (14-ft) which is said to offer 30X the performance of SPY-1 which is a major upgrade. The cancelled CG-X was to have a 22-ft radar...
fwiw, the 2012 GAO document (GAO-12-113, "Arleigh Burke Destroyers: Additional Analysis and Oversight Required") contains a good account of the 2007 Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces (MAMDJF) study which served as the AoA (analysis of alternatives) basis for the then CG(X) program... the top-level threat environment depicted there called for an AMDR with a sensitivity of SPY+30, ie. +30 dB or 1000x greater than the current SPY-1 (or equivalently this +30 dB radar could detect the same sized target at approx 5.6x greater range than the current SPY-1, using the fourth-root relationship of sensitivity increase to range)...

this +30 dB would have been a radar on the order of 25 feet in diameter (you can use the values given in the GAO document for a +15 dB 14-foot radar, together with the radius raised to the 6th power scaling relationship to sensitivity to consider other sensitivity values and their associated sizes)...

with a reduced radar need of around a +27 dB improvement (ie. around 500x more sensitive) over the current SPY-1, an AMDR of around 22-foot diameter would result with a range improvement of around 4.7x over the current SPY-1 for same sized targets...

while the currently planned/procured flight-III 14-foot diameter +15 dB AMDR (ie. around 32x greater sensitivity), the range improvement over the baseline SPY-1 is around 2.4x for same sized target (or equivalently, the often quoted "two times the range for a target half the size", due to the fourth-root relationship of both target rcs and sensitivity increase to range performance)...
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yep, tend to agree, I think the Cruiser is a class of ship that is looking for a home, a home that is now occupied too.

Probably the last hold out of Cruiser's is in the Russian Navy, the one remaining Kirov at 28,000t and the three 12,500t Slava's, but realistically, will they ever be replaced by similar? Probably not.

I think when the last of the 'current' cruisers are gone, the replacements won't be called cruisers, wait and see!
You could probably just about classify the Kirov as a Battlecruiser I think. It's really in a class of its own.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You could probably just about classify the Kirov as a Battlecruiser I think. It's really in a class of its own.
Chinas carrier as originally configured by the ukrainians was as an aviation cruiser - the chinese basically walked away from the soviet/russian tradition over turning everything into an arsenal ship and repurposed it into a dedicated stobar carrier.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Aegis destroyers can already do ASAT if loaded on board.
You can get the BMD capability with with destroyers, especially those in the 7 - 8,000 tonne range. The South Koreans have an AEGIS destroyer with BMD capability. regarding ASAT capability, that may require a larger ship, but then again it may not. GF would know more about that side of it.
The question becomes, can they be simultaneously loaded for a dedicated ASAT role, BMD role, land-attack role, AND still carry a full complement of AShMs and SAMs.

I think what might distinguish the cruiser is that it doesn't have to sacrifice any single capability.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yep, tend to agree, I think the Cruiser is a class of ship that is looking for a home, a home that is now occupied too.

When the US started to replace the 4500t CFA's, with the much larger 8000t Spruance class, the lines certainly started to blur.

Yes of course the slightly larger and bigger displacement Ticonderoga class grew out of Spruance, but you could almost call them Destroyers on 'steroids' to a degree, once the new benchmark was set by Spruance.

Today when you look at the various larger AEGIS ships, the latest Flight III DDG-51's are closer to 10,000t, the Japanese are around that too, and the South Korean, Sejong the Great class are 11,000t and 165m in length.

And we've even had the three 14,000t Zumwalt's too, but putting them aside, it's reasonable to assume that a DDG of the future is going to be a minimum of 10,000t and beyond.

The Future Frigates for the RAN are all going to be around 7000t or more too.

Probably the last hold out of Cruiser's is in the Russian Navy, the one remaining Kirov at 28,000t and the three 12,500t Slava's, but realistically, will they ever be replaced by similar? Probably not.

I think when the last of the 'current' cruisers are gone, the replacements won't be called cruisers, wait and see!
At least one other Kirov is being brought back online with a major re-armament. It will carry 80 UKSK cells, plus an undisclosed number of S-300FM launchers, Redut SAM VLS, and even Pantsyr-SM for CIWS. This is the Admiral Nakhimov and work is currently underway. Once it's back online, the Petr Velikiy will be done up in a similar manner. Whether a 3rd Kirov will be reanimated remains to be seen and likely depends on the pace of the OKR Leader, which itself envisions a new battlecruiser in the same class as the Kirovs.
 

Torlek

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
I would argue that the cruiser, per se, may be a class of ship looking for a mission in some navies. From my POV I think that the cruiser as a class of ship in the USN is a dying class, because most, if not all, of it's capability sets and raison d' etre have been acquired by other classes of ships.
The US cruiser should be given the opportunity to evolve, and it must evolve.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The US cruiser should be given the opportunity to evolve, and it must evolve.
But into what is the question.

These are what I had in mind for American-designed warships operating within a Ford carrier strike group / carrier battle group, as well as independently of such a group.



American-designed heavy aviation cruiser

Assumption 1: No catapults unless the flight deck is large enough to accommodate them and the number of aircraft below.

Crew requirement: 800-1,000

Fixed-wing aircraft: At least 30 F-35Bs, up to 36
Rotary aircraft: At least 16 manned helicopters (like the Kiev), up to 24 (like the Kuznetsov)

Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SSMs: 144 (assuming one can fit 12 of them for each P-700 launcher)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SAMs: 48 (assuming one can fit 3 VLS tubes / cells and up to 12 ESSMs for each pair of 8-cell 3K95 SAM systems)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for ASWs: 20u (where u is the factor for how many can ASROCs be fit for each 10-barrel Udav-1 anti-submarine rocket launcher)

Torpedo launchers: At least 8 triple tubes, up to 10 (more than comparable to the Kiev's 10 twin tubes)
Close-in weapons systems: 8
Anti-aircraft guns: At least 4, up to 6

Laser weapon systems and other directed energy weapon systems: ???

The total number of Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells is at least 212.



Smaller American-designed aviation cruiser

Assumption 1: No catapults

Crew requirement: 600-800

Fixed-wing aircraft: 24 F-35Bs
Rotary aircraft: 16 manned helicopters

Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SSMs: 120 (assuming one can fit just 10 of them for each P-500 launcher)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SAMs: 48 (assuming one can fit 3 VLS tubes / cells and up to 12 ESSMs for each pair of 8-cell 3K95 SAM systems)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for ASWs: 24b (where b is the factor for how many ASROCs can be fit for each 12-barrel RBU-6000 anti-submarine rocket launcher)

Torpedo launchers: At least 8 triple tubes, up to 10 (more than comparable to the Kiev's 10 twin tubes)
Close-in weapons systems: 8
Anti-aircraft guns: 4

Laser weapon systems and other directed energy weapon systems: ???

The total number of Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells is at least 192.



American-designed heavy guided missile cruiser

Crew requirement: 600 at most (compared to over 700 for the Kirov)
Nuclear powered: Yes
Rotary aircraft: At least 3 manned helicopters (like the Kirov), up to 4

Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SSMs: 240 (assuming one can fit 12 of them for each P-700 launcher)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SAMs: 36 (assuming one can fit 9 VLS tubes / cells and up to 36 ESSMs for every four 8-cell 3K95 SAM systems)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SAMs: 96f (where f is the factor for how many can be fit for each long-range S-300FM launcher)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for SAMs: 40o (where o is the factor for how many can be fit for each OSA-MA launcher :D )
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for ASWs: 20u (where u is the factor for how many ASROCs can be fit for each 10-barrel Udav-1 anti-submarine rocket launcher)
Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells for ASWs: 12r (where r is the factor for how many ASROCs can be fit for each 6-barrel RBU-1000 anti-submarine rocket launcher)

Torpedo launchers: At least 4 triple tubes, up to 10 (more than comparable to the Kirov's 2 quintuple tubes)
Close-in weapons systems: 6
Anti-aircraft guns: 8

Rail guns: 2 initially for anti-aircraft and surface warfare, up to a maximum for new battleship warfare of???
Laser weapon systems and other directed energy weapon systems: ???


The total number of Mark 41 VLS tubes / cells is at least 444.
This is total fantasy. What purpose would these vessels serve? Note the way this thread started. With a discussion of the role and purpose of cruisers. You're just creating random fantasy warships with lists of weapons for them. What makes your expensive and complicated monstrosity any better then 6 Arleigh Burke class destroyers? They will likely be cheaper, while some are down for maintenance the others are available for service, and together they carry a similar number of Mk41 tubes, while offering more flexibility. Not to mention you dodge the ridiculous R&D cost and huge build time.

The VMF's current cruisers are a Soviet inheritance and the 1164s in size are comparable to current US destroyers. The 1144s are, like was said, in a class of their own. But originally they were so huge because they had to accommodate the monstrous Granit AShM. Today's missiles are much smaller and even the new hypersonic Tsirkon is supposed to fit into standard UKSK (the closest Russian equivalent to a Mk41) launch cells. The reason OKR Leader turned into a heavy cruiser while starting out as a destroyer project is because the VMF forced ABM and ASAT requirements onto it. However there's a good chance this is a mistake (Russia badly needs a mass-produced destroyer that they can get 16-20 of across multiple fleets and it doesn't have to be on par with US counterparts). As is it's a paper concept with no final version yet published. While it's overwhelming likely that the program will go ahead in some form, it's in no way an argument in favor of the USN following suit.

Again, the question you need to ask yourself is this. What purpose would it serve? What would it do that smaller ships can't? That's what this entire discussion has been about. Please refrain from video-game like fantasy ships.

EDIT: One more point I forgot to address, the reason the Kirov's are being brought back is because the VMF faces a shortage of modern ocean-going vessels. They would be far better off with half a dozen ships in the 7000-10000 tonn range with theater-level airdefense capabilities and a decent missile arsenal but they just don't have any. Upgrading the 956s is a dead end because of their powerplant issues and upgrading the 1155s to carry both serious air defense and the Kalibr is too complicated (though it's likely they will get upgraded anyway because there simply isn't anything else available but the upgrade will be a cheaper one). Thus they're only left with the Kirovs as a convenient option for removing existing launchers and refitting them with UKSK cells.
 

Torlek

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
What purpose would these vessels serve? Note the way this thread started. With a discussion of the role and purpose of cruisers.
I've edited those out, then, to keep the discussion open. Nonetheless, what I originally posted was an elaboration of the last paragraph in my OP. One doesn't express reservations with weaknesses in the three US Navy-related reports without trying to put forward alternatives.

What makes your expensive and complicated monstrosity any better then 6 Arleigh Burke class destroyers? They will likely be cheaper, while some are down for maintenance the others are available for service, and together they carry a similar number of Mk41 tubes, while offering more flexibility. Not to mention you dodge the ridiculous R&D cost and huge build time.
They're of higher quality in general, but more important they've got much higher survivability. It's no different than the difference between green-water navies throwing a bunch of frigates and corvettes at a blue-water navy's traditional cruiser. It's also no different than green-water navies being supported by land-based long-range missiles designed to keep aircraft carriers out of striking distance.

The aviation cruisers referred to in my last OP paragraph are meant to do two things in a supercarrier CSG / CBG: replace all proposed light aircraft carriers in the works, and serve as an inner escort-of-last-resort. Outside a supercarrier CSG / CBG, their range of functions would be flexible: anyway from those of the four then-reactivated Iowa-class battleships to the ballistic missile submarine protection provided by aviation cruisers to being the core of a light aircraft carrier strike group.

The heavy guided missile cruiser would restore the cruiser's spot in a supercarrier CSG / CBG, a spot which was snatched from it by a destroyer. Wikipedia's article on the Iowa-class battleship has a cool 1980s picture of the Iowa and Midway together in Battle Group Alpha.

The 1144s are, like was said, in a class of their own. But originally they were so huge because they had to accommodate the monstrous Granit AShM. Today's missiles are much smaller and even the new hypersonic Tsirkon is supposed to fit into standard UKSK (the closest Russian equivalent to a Mk41) launch cells.
It will be very interesting to see the specific listing of Admiral Nakhimov's refitted armaments once it's released. Thanks for the lengthy description of the history behind the Kirov's development.

Thus they're only left with the Kirovs as a convenient option for removing existing launchers and refitting them with UKSK cells.
Backed into a refit corner, huh?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
They're of higher quality in general, but more important they've got much higher survivability. It's no different than the difference between green-water navies throwing a bunch of frigates and corvettes at a blue-water navy's traditional cruiser. It's also no different than green-water navies being supported by land-based long-range missiles designed to keep aircraft carriers out of striking distance.
Except it is different. In this day and age survivability is not just about size or damage control. We're in an age where frigates are blue-water vessels, and tiny guided missile corvettes can project force from the Caspian into the Mediterranean.

The aviation cruisers referred to in my last OP paragraph are meant to do two things in a supercarrier CSG / CBG: replace all proposed light aircraft carriers in the works, and serve as an inner escort-of-last-resort. Outside a supercarrier CSG / CBG, their range of functions would be flexible: anyway from those of the four then-reactivated Iowa-class battleships to the ballistic missile submarine protection provided by aviation cruisers to being the core of a light aircraft carrier strike group.
It's not clear that a universal role of that nature is desirable, achievable, or even possible. You're looking at sticking everything but the kitchen sink on a single ship and assuming it will work well. The operational history of similar-designed Soviet ships says otherwise.

The heavy guided missile cruiser would restore the cruiser's spot in a supercarrier CSG / CBG, a spot which was snatched from it by a destroyer. Wikipedia's article on the Iowa-class battleship has a cool 1980s picture of the Iowa and Midway together in Battle Group Alpha.
That's a very vague statement. There are reasons why things went the route they did today. Simply turning back the clock with a modern cruiser doesn't explain why this is necessary or desirable. The minor advantage of being able to take a few more missile hits vs the issues of cost, maintenance, complexity, and very limited flexibility (instead of say 50 destroyers you'd have 10 monstrous heavy cruisers) don't seem to make sense. And there's the issue of coverage. Current destroyers in the USN travel a considerable distance apart, allowing their sensors to cover a bigger area, and working together with the carrier's air group to provide situational awareness. This is something that would be lost when dealing with a single large cruiser.

It will be very interesting to see the specific listing of Admiral Nakhimov's refitted armaments once it's released. Thanks for the lengthy description of the history behind the Kirov's development.
Here you go. Use google translate.

Análisis Militares: Sobre la modernización del Nakimov ... (actualizado)

Backed into a refit corner, huh?
Most Russian deployments consist of a single large surface combatant plus support vessels. It's rare to see two VMF combat ships in the same place, until the Syrian mess started. The VMF has managed to gather impressive task forces, when it's preplanned, but it's likely they would be hard pressed to put forth such a showing on short notice. They can't afford to let the Kirovs rot.
 

Torlek

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
Except it is different. In this day and age survivability is not just about size or damage control. We're in an age where frigates are blue-water vessels, and tiny guided missile corvettes can project force from the Caspian into the Mediterranean.
Every naval age is different, but there are a few unavoidable constants. Two of them are politics and accounting. The Reagan administration wanted a 600-ship Navy, and today's Navy said that the absolute ideal number of ships is 653. There are far less problems reaching those inventory numbers if a country were to produce just missile boats, corvettes, and frigates.

I can totally understand the US Navy rendering the cruiser obsolete, if and only if there were to replace their supercarriers with smaller, more numerous carriers.

It's not clear that a universal role of that nature is desirable, achievable, or even possible. You're looking at sticking everything but the kitchen sink on a single ship and assuming it will work well. The operational history of similar-designed Soviet ships says otherwise.
It's possible and achievable because of two things: every naval age before has seen a universal warship in one form or another, and because the three US Navy-related reports themselves don't assume too many budget constraints. It took them this frickin' long to raise their hands up officially and say, "We need light aircraft carriers."

The last time something like this was considered was during the era of the Medium Aircraft Carrier idea.

That's a very vague statement. There are reasons why things went the route they did today. Simply turning back the clock with a modern cruiser doesn't explain why this is necessary or desirable. The minor advantage of being able to take a few more missile hits vs the issues of cost, maintenance, complexity, and very limited flexibility (instead of say 50 destroyers you'd have 10 monstrous heavy cruisers) don't seem to make sense. And there's the issue of coverage. Current destroyers in the USN travel a considerable distance apart, allowing their sensors to cover a bigger area, and working together with the carrier's air group to provide situational awareness. This is something that would be lost when dealing with a single large cruiser.
Right now a CSG / CBG has six large surface combatants surrounding the supercarrier. Nobody is suggesting a quantitative increase, or an increase in the number of these surface warships. Likewise, nobody is suggesting a quantitative decrease; I certainly am not suggesting a one-for-two or one-for-more replacement.

Thanks for the Spanish website link, by the way.
 
Top