What is the differens between a Cruiser and a Destroyer?

[Wall83]

Im a bit confused what the differens is between a modern destroyer and a cruiser.
Can someone help me with this?

If you look at pure size many many new destroyers is has more dicplacement then cold war cruisers. I gess it has something to do with the arment, cruisemissiles and so?

I few models that I think shuld be classifed as Cruisers today is for ex the new Type 45 Destroyer in the royal navy, the Atago class in the Japanese self defence navy.
If you look at the Atago class for exampel it has a lengh of 170 meters and a maximum dicplacent of +10,000 tons. That relly screams Cruiser for me.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atago_class_destroyer"]Atago class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I honestly don't know but I do know the USN is planing on taking their modern Burke class destroyers and making them bigger and carry more weapons and adding a air/missile defense radar and using them to replace their Ticonderoga class cruisers. Essentially turning their Burke class destroyers into cruisers with the Flight III Burkes.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Im a bit confused what the differens is between a modern destroyer and a cruiser.
Can someone help me with this?

If you look at pure size many many new destroyers is has more dicplacement then cold war cruisers. I gess it has something to do with the arment, cruisemissiles and so?

I few models that I think shuld be classifed as Cruisers today is for ex the new Type 45 Destroyer in the royal navy, the Atago class in the Japanese self defence navy.
If you look at the Atago class for exampel it has a lengh of 170 meters and a maximum dicplacent of +10,000 tons. That relly screams Cruiser for me.

Definitions are often subject to the opinions of the definer. For example, Iran recently claimed to have launched an indigenous-built "destroyer," when the ship in question is a vessel most Western observers would describe as a "corvette" or "frigate."

Several factors can shape this definition.

First, as in the case of Iran, is pride, inferiority complexes, etc. where one nation attempts to categorize its mere destroyers as "cruisers!" in order to rattle its saber or for PR/propaganda purposes.

Secondly, is the issue of domestic and international politics. The nation you mentioned earlier, Japan, has a unique constitutional clause dating back to right after WWII which bars it from taking any aggressive military action. Hence the reason the Japanese military is called the Japanese Self-Defence Force. However, cruisers, as fairly large blue-water naval vessels hardly fit this defensive mold, and I'd guess this is one of the reasons for the Atago's "downgrade" into a destroyer class.

Thirdly, is the issue of force structure. This is one of the reason for the Ticonderoga's classifications as cruisers, when their size (for a modern cruiser) is somewhat borderline. There's usually only one or two Aegis cruisers in a Carrier Battle Group as opposed to the larger numbers of DDGs and Frigates and this high ratio may be a factor in classifying the Ticonderogas as capital ships.

Note: there are other factors at work here and I'd appreciate a member better versed in the US Navy to evaluate this point for accuracy.

Fourthly, there is the issue of size. Although it is imperfect like you said, some ships are just too dang big to be called anything else, and hence they receive the cruiser classification as a nod to their size and capability. (like Russia's Kirov class battlecruisers)

Finally, there's the capability/role issue. Cruisers tend to very powerful vessels focusing on one or two roles (usually air defence or anti-surface warfare) and their firepower and magazine sizes tend to be significantly larger than DDGs of FFGs.

 

[Juramentado]

Lines Are Blurrier Now

Previously, you could easily distinguish combatant classes based on capabilities, size and tonnage. I think those lines have blurred as the move towards assets capable of independent action is more prevalent now.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Previously, you could easily distinguish combatant classes based on capabilities, size and tonnage. I think those lines have blurred as the move towards assets capable of independent action is more prevalent now.

Do you think independent action is a growing priority? At least in the US Navy, it seems to me that most combat ships from frigate on up (the LCS is a bit different) are focused on working as a component of a larger Carrier Battle Group or a Task Force.

 

[Juramentado]

Do you think independent action is a growing priority? At least in the US Navy, it seems to me that most combat ships from frigate on up (the LCS is a bit different) are focused on working as a component of a larger Carrier Battle Group or a Task Force.

I guess I'm stuck in the 80s. The classic independent asset is the OHP - pre-Mk. 13 removal, of course. A great ASW killer, and could modestly stand on it's own in other missions. I still see that today: the Flight I Burkes fit that bill as well. II and II-A got organic aviation, but gave up some of the ASuW punch with the 'poons. Tico CGs still meet that today, albeit a very expensive proposition if they were deliberately sent in unescorted. What happens in the future with the Zumwalt replacement (anybody find that ironic given the in-class ship hasn't even gotten it's keel wetted down?) and CG(X) is another story; not sure we'll find the answers all to our liking. I have to step away from the US doctrine, which almost always assumes air-superiority of the immediate battlespace. Quite a different story for other navies.

 

[Belesari]

I guess I'm stuck in the 80s. The classic independent asset is the OHP - pre-Mk. 13 removal, of course. A great ASW killer, and could modestly stand on it's own in other missions. I still see that today: the Flight I Burkes fit that bill as well. II and II-A got organic aviation, but gave up some of the ASuW punch with the 'poons. Tico CGs still meet that today, albeit a very expensive proposition if they were deliberately sent in unescorted. What happens in the future with the Zumwalt replacement (anybody find that ironic given the in-class ship hasn't even gotten it's keel wetted down?) and CG(X) is another story; not sure we'll find the answers all to our liking. I have to step away from the US doctrine, which almost always assumes air-superiority of the immediate battlespace. Quite a different story for other navies.

Heck part of the Burkes deadliness is the fact that were theres one theres likely to be 3 or 4 more. Plus it helps distribute dammage around the fleet. Which is needed with the ways our ships are undermanned now. There not really ment to take battle dammage and keep fighting.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Heck part of the Burkes deadliness is the fact that were theres one theres likely to be 3 or 4 more. Plus it helps distribute dammage around the fleet. Which is needed with the ways our ships are undermanned now. There not really ment to take battle dammage and keep fighting.

That's why there's such an investment in Aegis, CIWS, the Standard missiles, LAMPS heloes etc. It's better to kill whoever's trying to hit you rather than try to absorb the hit, especially since modern weapons are far more deadly than their counterparts in years past

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think the next batch of DDG-51's called the Flight III that the Navy is working on will be cruisers in size and capability even though the current Flight I, II, and IIa are destroyers.

Hell, the Flight IIa is already 510 ft long and carry's 96 missiles and displaces 9,200 tons, its already more powerful than WWII battleships. The new Flight III will probably be 10,000 tons in displacement, bigger than the Ticonderoga class cruisers and have a new air/missile defense radar.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32109_20100226.pdf

Edit: As for the DDG-1000 at 600 ft long, armed with 80 missiles and 2 155mm guns and weighing in at over 14,500 tons, this "destroyer" really screams battleship or heavy battlecruiser.

 

[Belesari]

I think the next batch of DDG-51's called the Flight III that the Navy is working on will be cruisers in size and capability even though the current Flight I, II, and IIa are destroyers.

Hell, the Flight IIa is already 510 ft long and carry's 96 missiles and displaces 9,200 tons, its already more powerful than WWII battleships. The new Flight III will probably be 10,000 tons in displacement, bigger than the Ticonderoga class cruisers and have a new air/missile defense radar.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32109_20100226.pdf

Edit: As for the DDG-1000 at 600 ft long, armed with 80 missiles and 2 155mm guns and weighing in at over 14,500 tons, this "destroyer" really screams battleship or heavy battlecruiser.

LOL dont forget the iowa had just a little bit more weight to her. 58,000 tons when it had a war load.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

LOL dont forget the iowa had just a little bit more weight to her. 58,000 tons when it had a war load.

True but today's cruiser's and destroyers still have more firepower.

 

[Belesari]

True but today's cruiser's and destroyers still have more firepower.

True but most of iowas weight was steel armor and those big guns. If a ship of the same dimentions and mission spec was built today it would be much lighter but also far more powerful than a cruiser.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

True but most of iowas weight was steel armor and those big guns. If a ship of the same dimentions and mission spec was built today it would be much lighter but also far more powerful than a cruiser.

If they were to build a modern battleship, it would probably be without guns but in its place would be +600 missile tubes with maybe 1-2 155mm guns and weigh in at around 60,000 tons and be over 850 ft long. Well thats my idea of a modern battleship.

 

[Sea Toby]

If they were to build a modern battleship, it would probably be without guns but in its place would be +600 missile tubes with maybe 1-2 155mm guns and weigh in at around 60,000 tons and be over 850 ft long. Well thats my idea of a modern battleship.

And I was thinking in terms of the old nuclear cruiser Long Beach, but with Aegis, one or two 155 mm gun mounts, a large SM-2s vertical launch SAMs, and a large number of Tomahawk missiles. Hey, ain't that the Zumwalts?

 

[Belesari]

And I was thinking in terms of the old nuclear cruiser Long Beach, but with Aegis, one or two 155 mm gun mounts, a large SM-2s vertical launch SAMs, and a large number of Tomahawk missiles. Hey, ain't that the Zumwalts?

Nope zumwalts have lots of gadgets and are stealthy.

Seriously though i like your idea better.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Nope zumwalts have lots of gadgets and are stealthy.

Seriously though i like your idea better.

Thats what I have pretty much been saying all along.

 

[StevoJH]

In my mind the larger surface ships such as the Burke, T45, F-100, Ticonderoga are ALL cruisers.

The smaller "frigates" are actually destroyers. examples being T23, FFG-7, ANZAC etc.

 

[Belesari]

Well part of the problem is how people designate ships. The US from its first Naval vessels the Constitution class have not had a normal system for naming there ships. So.......

 

[AegisFC]

In my mind the larger surface ships such as the Burke, T45, F-100, Ticonderoga are ALL cruisers.

The smaller "frigates" are actually destroyers. examples being T23, FFG-7, ANZAC etc.

Currently in the USN what differentiates a Cruiser from a Destroyer is the space for an embarked commander, and staff. A Tico has the extra CIC space with the associated consoles along with the extra berthing space. A Burke has a cramped CIC in normal operations and squeezing in an embarked commander is always fun, nor is there really any berthing space available, usually the XO gets kicked out of his state room and the EC gets it.

 

[StevoJH]

Currently in the USN what differentiates a Cruiser from a Destroyer is the space for an embarked commander, and staff. A Tico has the extra CIC space with the associated consoles along with the extra berthing space. A Burke has a cramped CIC in normal operations and squeezing in an embarked commander is always fun, nor is there really any berthing space available, usually the XO gets kicked out of his state room and the EC gets it.

It might be more cramped, but you can still have an embarked commander aboard though.