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.
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.