A modern cruiser?

[zen]

Again with increased volume, any penetrating weapon is rendered less effective the more space between crucial systems exist.

 

[publiusr]

I see a future cruiser as a type of surface boomer.

Slanted central island superstructure with vertical missile tubes within…tall enough for Minutemen.

Pop-up turrets.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I see a future cruiser as a type of surface boomer.

Slanted central island superstructure with vertical missile tubes within…tall enough for Minutemen.

Pop-up turrets.

Why?

Minuteman is long, 60ft, and is nuclear only. You see a ballistic missile coming from a ship that you know is armed with Minuteman, you assume it's a nuke and go to DEFCON 2.

 

[uk 75]

The main role of a cruiser since the development of missiles in the 1950s is to provide a large, fast platform for as many missiles and radars as possible.
In 1961 this meant a nuclear powered ship (Long Beach) with Talos and Terrier anti air missiles, ASROC anti sub missiles, and even a Regulus2 or Polaris A1 fit (not done as subs were better)
By 1991 the Bunker Hill class of evolved Spruance destroyer was filling this cruiser role with vertical launch SAMs, ASROC and SSM (Harpoon and Tomahawk) plus two 5" guns.
The Burke class AEGIS ships had much of this capability on a smaller platform.
Arguably the US could follow the Royal Navy and abandon the cruiser altogether. Air defence ships (T45) are destroyers and ASW/General Purpose (T23) are frigates.
VLS in fact allows missiles of all kinds in both destroyers and frigates but the radars and sensor fit determines the main role. All RN ships have a hangar for a large helicopter.
Hypersonic and other bulky weapons (bigger warhead ssms and fire support guns) might require a bigger platform similar to old cruisers. Providing armour and active protection also. Nuclear power might even be required.

 

[TomS]

The announced targets for DDG(X) sound very much like the USN is dropping cruisers entirely. The one possible alternative is that the stretched version discussed with the Destroyer Payload Module becomes a cruiser.

 

[sferrin]

The announced targets for DDG(X) sound very much like the USN is dropping cruisers entirely. The one possible alternative is that the stretched version discussed with the Destroyer Payload Module becomes a cruiser.

Just when you think the bar couldn't get any lower the USN comes through again.

 

[uk 75]

In fairness to the USN building a new generation of cruisers would only be justified if their armament and sensors could not be fitted on smaller vessels.
A cruiser is a big target both in peace and war, which ties up more crew and supply ships than smaller units.
Long range strike missiles, whether cruise, ballistic or hypersonic, are more efficiently carried on nuclear submarines. These vessels can deploy undetected anywhere in the oceans of the world.
Air defence missiles in VLS on destroyers are well proven

 

[Moose]

In fairness to the USN building a new generation of cruisers would only be justified if their armament and sensors could not be fitted on smaller vessels.
A cruiser is a big target both in peace and war, which ties up more crew and supply ships than smaller units.
Long range strike missiles, whether cruise, ballistic or hypersonic, are more efficiently carried on nuclear submarines. These vessels can deploy undetected anywhere in the oceans of the world.
Air defence missiles in VLS on destroyers are well proven

DDG(X) Will displace more than all but 4 cruisers the US has ever built. In base configuration, the stretched version might best CGN-1. And that's based on a preliminary target displacement for the new combatant which is probably too low.

 

[BlackBat242]

There was no CGN-1.
There was CAG-1 Boston... the only nuclear-powered cruisers were CGN-9 Long Beach, CGN-25 Bainbridge, and CGN-35 Truxton.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The announced targets for DDG(X) sound very much like the USN is dropping cruisers entirely. The one possible alternative is that the stretched version discussed with the Destroyer Payload Module becomes a cruiser.

It will need space for flag facilities, those 1-stars need their sea time, and you don't want them anywhere near the carrier. Though not all the ships will require those flag facilities... maybe 1 in 4?

 

[Dilandu]

It will need space for flag facilities, those 1-stars need their sea time, and you don't want them anywhere near the carrier. Though not all the ships will require those flag facilities... maybe 1 in 4?

A question: in the era of Starlink & future laser-orbit communication links, do you really need the flag facilities onboard warship?

 

[Firefinder]

It will need space for flag facilities, those 1-stars need their sea time, and you don't want them anywhere near the carrier. Though not all the ships will require those flag facilities... maybe 1 in 4?

A question: in the era of Starlink & future laser-orbit communication links, do you really need the flag facilities onboard warship?

Yes you do.

Every attempt to back seat command a unit let alone a ship ends in disaster for a reason. To much happens too fast for that ste of command to work.

Not to mention you have to consider EWAR fun and the like.

Just because Russia has issue with jamming Starlink today will not mean China or the US will tomorrow.

That before you get into emissions control fun.

 

[SSgtC]

In fairness to the USN building a new generation of cruisers would only be justified if their armament and sensors could not be fitted on smaller vessels.

Not quite. The USN specifically could justify building a new class of cruisers if they were nuclear powered. Alone of the world's navies, the United States Navy operates nuclear powered aircraft carriers. But those ships are currently constrained in their operations by their conventionally powered escorts. The USN could justify building nuclear powered cruisers in order to allow their carriers to exploit their ability to operate at high speed for an essentially unlimited amount of time and distance. Because now the carriers will always have at least one escort capable of keeping up with them without running out of fuel.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The announced targets for DDG(X) sound very much like the USN is dropping cruisers entirely. The one possible alternative is that the stretched version discussed with the Destroyer Payload Module becomes a cruiser.

Just when you think the bar couldn't get any lower the USN comes through again.

Kind of irrelevant in a modern context. Modern Surface Combatants have as much, if not more endurance, and the Zumwalts have relatively good flag facilities.

A modern cruiser is basically a large long-ranged hull with good endurance and flag facilities (fleet flag facilities are a different question, you need something like the Blue Ridge-class for that) for an air-warfare commander, which could describe many modern guided missile destroyers.

Of course DDG(X) was originally called Large Surface Combatant for a reason, I doubt the US Navy sees much distinction between Cruisers and Destroyers these days, especially since they haven't built a proper cruiser since Long Beach, although some of the various 1960s Typhon studies, 1960s Fleet Flagship studies, 1970s Strike Cruiser, 1980s Heavy Combatant, High Survivability Cruiser and Fleet Command Ship and the largest of the CG-21/CG(X) designs probably would fall under the traditional definition of a cruiser.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

There was no CGN-1.
There was CAG-1 Boston... the only nuclear-powered cruisers were CGN-9 Long Beach, CGN-25 Bainbridge, and CGN-35 Truxton.

Bainbridge and Truxton were Frigates (in the pre-1975 USN usage of the word) as were California and Virginia classes.

 

[TomS]

Of course DDG(X) was originally called Large Surface Combatant for a reason, I doubt the US Navy sees much distinction between Cruisers and Destroyers these days, especially since they haven't built a proper cruiser since Long Beach,

Thanks. This is what I was trying to say. The current DDG(X) plan is essentially building a DLG. Adding a stretch for the extra payload module might be enough to trigger the switch from DDG to CG designation, or it might not. The warfighting capacity will still be the same, regardless of what we call it. And I think pretty DDG(X) is pretty well-aligned with the Navy's actual needs, finally, after a decade plus of indecision.

The USN specifically could justify building a new class of cruisers if they were nuclear powered.

But it can't afford to build a new class of cruisers if they are nuclear powered. Nuke power alone, even combined with "just" the DDG(X) armament suite, would cost an extra 20-30%, (at least). And that's not even considering the sustainment and disposal costs. Sure, you save fuel, but nuke maintainers are expensive compared to their GT counterparts.

The notional advantage of having an escort that can "keep up" with a nuke carrier on a speed run has rarely (if ever) really been needed. Slowing down for an UNREP doesn't eat up that much time, which is why the CVNs carry fuel to replenish their escorts.

 

[SSgtC]

But it can't afford to build a new class of cruisers if they are nuclear powered. Nuke power alone, even combined with "just" the DDG(X) armament suite, would cost an extra 20-30%, (at least). And that's not even considering the sustainment and disposal costs. Sure, you save fuel, but nuke maintainers are expensive compared to their GT counterparts.

The notional advantage of having an escort that can "keep up" with a nuke carrier on a speed run has rarely (if ever) really been needed. Slowing down for an UNREP doesn't eat up that much time, which is why the CVNs carry fuel to replenish their escorts.

I'm not saying they should build CGNs. I'm saying that, of all the world's navies, the USN is pretty much the only one that could actually justify building a class of modern guided missile cruisers. But that if they did, the likely only argument they could use would be to make them nuclear powered to "keep up with the carrier." Because honestly, beyond carrying more SAMs and/or Tomahawks, there really isn't anything a modern cruiser can do that a destroyer can't do just as well.

 

[Moose]

There was no CGN-1.
There was CAG-1 Boston... the only nuclear-powered cruisers were CGN-9 Long Beach, CGN-25 Bainbridge, and CGN-35 Truxton.

Yep mistake. I blame NyQuil.

 

[sferrin]

The announced targets for DDG(X) sound very much like the USN is dropping cruisers entirely. The one possible alternative is that the stretched version discussed with the Destroyer Payload Module becomes a cruiser.

Just when you think the bar couldn't get any lower the USN comes through again.

Kind of irrelevant in a modern context. Modern Surface Combatants have as much, if not more endurance, and the Zumwalts have relatively good flag facilities.

A modern cruiser is basically a large long-ranged hull with good endurance and flag facilities (fleet flag facilities are a different question, you need something like the Blue Ridge-class for that) for an air-warfare commander, which could describe many modern guided missile destroyers.

Of course DDG(X) was originally called Large Surface Combatant for a reason, I doubt the US Navy sees much distinction between Cruisers and Destroyers these days, especially since they haven't built a proper cruiser since Long Beach, although some of the various 1960s Typhon studies, 1960s Fleet Flagship studies, 1970s Strike Cruiser, 1980s Heavy Combatant, High Survivability Cruiser and Fleet Command Ship and the largest of the CG-21/CG(X) designs probably would fall under the traditional definition of a cruiser.

Now that you mention it, even the Zumwalts are called destroyers.

 

[Firefinder]

The announced targets for DDG(X) sound very much like the USN is dropping cruisers entirely. The one possible alternative is that the stretched version discussed with the Destroyer Payload Module becomes a cruiser.

Just when you think the bar couldn't get any lower the USN comes through again.

Kind of irrelevant in a modern context. Modern Surface Combatants have as much, if not more endurance, and the Zumwalts have relatively good flag facilities.

A modern cruiser is basically a large long-ranged hull with good endurance and flag facilities (fleet flag facilities are a different question, you need something like the Blue Ridge-class for that) for an air-warfare commander, which could describe many modern guided missile destroyers.

Of course DDG(X) was originally called Large Surface Combatant for a reason, I doubt the US Navy sees much distinction between Cruisers and Destroyers these days, especially since they haven't built a proper cruiser since Long Beach, although some of the various 1960s Typhon studies, 1960s Fleet Flagship studies, 1970s Strike Cruiser, 1980s Heavy Combatant, High Survivability Cruiser and Fleet Command Ship and the largest of the CG-21/CG(X) designs probably would fall under the traditional definition of a cruiser.

Now that you mention it, even the Zumwalts are called destroyers.

Needs to be remembered that up to like 2000 the Navy did have a cruiser design to go with what became the Zumwalt based on the Zumwalts hull in tge SC21 then CG21.

That in turn became the CG(X) design which got canceled in 2010.

They were basically the Tico Class to the Zumwalts Spuarance class.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The announced targets for DDG(X) sound very much like the USN is dropping cruisers entirely. The one possible alternative is that the stretched version discussed with the Destroyer Payload Module becomes a cruiser.

Just when you think the bar couldn't get any lower the USN comes through again.

Kind of irrelevant in a modern context. Modern Surface Combatants have as much, if not more endurance, and the Zumwalts have relatively good flag facilities.

A modern cruiser is basically a large long-ranged hull with good endurance and flag facilities (fleet flag facilities are a different question, you need something like the Blue Ridge-class for that) for an air-warfare commander, which could describe many modern guided missile destroyers.

Of course DDG(X) was originally called Large Surface Combatant for a reason, I doubt the US Navy sees much distinction between Cruisers and Destroyers these days, especially since they haven't built a proper cruiser since Long Beach, although some of the various 1960s Typhon studies, 1960s Fleet Flagship studies, 1970s Strike Cruiser, 1980s Heavy Combatant, High Survivability Cruiser and Fleet Command Ship and the largest of the CG-21/CG(X) designs probably would fall under the traditional definition of a cruiser.

Now that you mention it, even the Zumwalts are called destroyers.

Needs to be remembered that up to like 2000 the Navy did have a cruiser design to go with what became the Zumwalt based on the Zumwalts hull in tge SC21.

That in turn became the CG-21 design which got canceled in 2010.

They were basically the Tico Class to the Zumwalts Spuarance class.

Exactly.

Originally, the stretched Zumwalt was going to be classed as a Cruiser. I'm assuming that the stretch was for more electrical power and more missile volume, plus some Air-Warfare flag facilities.

Note that the Japanese explicitly stretched their Kongo, Atago, and Maya classes to include flag space. I'm not clear if the South Koreans did as well.

 

[Dilandu]

Just because Russia has issue with jamming Starlink today will not mean China or the US will tomorrow.

Yeah, yeah, in 1914 everyone in Europe also thought "trech warfare is ridiculous, Japanese / Greeks / Serbians / Bulgarians / Ottomans are just poorly trained and lack the true fighting spirit, proper European army would easily overcame any trenches by relentless charges with invincible national spirit".

P.S. And you managed to miss completely the part about lasers. Do you have the way to jam lasers?

Every attempt to back seat command a unit let alone a ship ends in disaster for a reason. To much happens too fast for that ste of command to work.

Since absolute majority of future fighting would be quite obviously done by unmanned drones, the "backseat command" would be presented anyway, so what's the difference?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Just because Russia has issue with jamming Starlink today will not mean China or the US will tomorrow.

Yeah, yeah, in 1914 everyone in Europe also thought "trech warfare is ridiculous, Japanese / Greeks / Serbians / Bulgarians / Ottomans are just poorly trained and lack the true fighting spirit, proper European army would easily overcame any trenches by relentless charges with invincible national spirit".

P.S. And you managed to miss completely the part about lasers. Do you have the way to jam lasers?

chaff, dust, clouds, shine a brighter laser at the satellite...

Every attempt to back seat command a unit let alone a ship ends in disaster for a reason. To much happens too fast for that ste of command to work.

Since absolute majority of future fighting would be quite obviously done by unmanned drones, the "backseat command" would be presented anyway, so what's the difference?

Because this is supposed to be the place the unmanned drones are controlled from.

 

[Dilandu]

Because this is supposed to be the place the unmanned drones are controlled from

Why can't it be merely a terminal for the sat-link shore control facility?

chaff, dust, clouds, shine a brighter laser at the satellite...

If you allow enemy to chaff you over, then you are already knocked out) IR-laser could work through clouds, by the way. And blinding... for thousand-satellites constellations it just wouldn't work.

With all respect, but those arguments are basically the same as French generals in 1920-1930s have against radio: "it could be jammed, it could be intecepted by enemy, it would disclose the position, so no-no, lets American toy with radio, true officers would rely on cable". While all those arguments were true in theory, on practice they weren't even remotely as disadvantage as FM radio was an advantage on battlefields. Laser comms have too many advantages to avoid them because of theoretical - and clumsy - disadvantages.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Because this is supposed to be the place the unmanned drones are controlled from

Why can't it be merely a terminal for the sat-link shore control facility?

It adds another 5-10 seconds to your command delay, plus requires satellite bandwidth for however much information you're sending back to the Air Warfare flag so they can make a decision. Usually, that's an immense amount of data. which all needs to be encrypted.

Now, what happens when the SATCOM antennas stop working for whatever reason? You just lost your Air Warfare command. The Navy will not tolerate that. Leave the person responsible for protecting the carrier where the carrier boss can ream him a new one for letting a missile through.

 

[Dilandu]

Now, what happens when the SATCOM antennas stop working for whatever reason?

And what happened if powder stopped exploding? Really, all this magical scenarios are only good for invasion-genre novels. High technology is more reliable (because you could put into it redundancy over redundancy).

Usually, that's an immense amount of data. which all needs to be encrypted.

Considering that laser downlink already demonstrated 200 gigabyte per second, it's not a problem at all.

The Navy will not tolerate that. Leave the person responsible for protecting the carrier where the carrier boss can ream him a new one for letting a missile through

So basically theproblem is not tech - its humans, who can't stop messing with machine decisions)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now, what happens when the SATCOM antennas stop working for whatever reason?

And what happened if powder stopped exploding? Really, all this magical scenarios are only good for invasion-genre novels. High technology is more reliable (because you could put into it redundancy over redundancy).

"Whatever reason" meaning mechanical failures, electrical failures, enemy attack on the ship, enemy attack on the satellites...

Why do I need to specify each different possibility for the system not working, other than "satcom stopped working, now how do you control your air defenses"?

Usually, that's an immense amount of data. which all needs to be encrypted.

Considering that laser downlink already demonstrated 200 gigabyte per second, it's not a problem at all.

Not the uplink being the limit. The crypto gear.

The Navy will not tolerate that. Leave the person responsible for protecting the carrier where the carrier boss can ream him a new one for letting a missile through

So basically theproblem is not tech - its humans, who can't stop messing with machine decisions)

You're sounding a lot like that CEO of Oceans Gate...

 

[Dilandu]

Why do I need to specify each different possibility for the system not working, other than "satcom stopped working, now how do you control your air defenses"?

Because in any of such cases the ship defenses would be crippled anyway. Any major cause that would cripple ALL satellite communications to such extent that the ship could not solve the problem would means that the ship is completely knocked off and could not fight anymore.

Not the uplink being the limit. The crypto gear.

This is only the matter of software, not hardware limit.

You're sounding a lot like that CEO of Oceans

Yeah, and having a repairmen onboard would so help them against implosion.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why do I need to specify each different possibility for the system not working, other than "satcom stopped working, now how do you control your air defenses"?

Because in any of such cases the ship defenses would be crippled anyway. Any major cause that would cripple ALL satellite communications to such extent that the ship could not solve the problem would means that the ship is completely knocked off and could not fight anymore.

I gave several non-combat reasons that the SATCOM could be down, as well as potential combat damage.

Any one of which could leave the ship able to fight because it has radars and missiles, but unable to coordinate the fight because the Air Warfare flag is 3000 miles away.

Not the uplink being the limit. The crypto gear.

This is only the matter of software, not hardware limit.

Wrong, it's hardware, because you need hardware fast enough to encrypt however many GB/TB per second to send to the SATCOM antennas, then hardware at the receiving end to decrypt that amount of data in real time for the Admiral to look at. Then whatever amount of uplink encryption you need to cover the admiral's orders to go back to the ship.

Admirals orders probably won't need a lot of bandwidth.

You're sounding a lot like that CEO of Oceans

Yeah, and having a repairmen onboard would so help them against implosion.

Having a repairman on site might have kept their data link going until they imploded.

 

[pathology_doc]

Start with the Long Beach platform. Planar arrays are now proven technology, so AEGIS can be fitted from the start.
Forecastle replaces the Terrier launchers with as many VLS cells for Standard, Tomahawk, etc. as you can fit around an 8 inch MCLWG.
Aft we resurrect Talos, fully upgraded with modern ramjet design, high energy fuels and new guidance system, including GPS and active terminal guidance. Its main role will be ultra long range aircraft knockdown and anti-ship work, while the VLS Standards handle the saturation air threat and ABM task
Not less than four and preferably six CIWS systems.

Nuclear propulsion to future-proof power output against requirements for railguns, lasers etc.

its humans, who can't stop messing with machine decisions

It's humans who can currently make intuitive decisions that the radars are reading it wrong and the incoming nuclear strike is in fact NOT REAL. The AI doesn't get let off the leash until there are no humans left alive to fight the ship.
.

 

[uk 75]

I wonder if having so many eggs in one basket is a good idea?
Smaller units (destroyers/frigates) can carry pretty impressive VLS numbers and a decent claibre gun for fire support.
Nuclear power and Talos style missiles would be expensive to provide. In essence this would be a Kirov style cruiser more suited for a navy which did not have large aircraft carriers. Like the 1970s Strike Cruiser and 80s CGN42/CGN9 upgrade it would have a difficult time getting budget approval.
On the other hand Talos should inspire a longer range weapon than Standard.

 

[Dilandu]

It's humans who can currently make intuitive decisions that the radars are reading it wrong and the incoming nuclear strike is in fact NOT REAL

And the same humans could mistook Iranian air liner for attacking F-14, despite machine noticing that it doesn't seems so.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's humans who can currently make intuitive decisions that the radars are reading it wrong and the incoming nuclear strike is in fact NOT REAL

And the same humans could mistook Iranian air liner for attacking F-14, despite machine noticing that it doesn't seems so.

That was reusing a contact number that had previously been an F-14, and the crew taking their cues from the captain and being very aggressive and looking for a fight.

I am told that a lot of Aegis procedures changed as a result of that incident.

 

[zen]

I wonder if having so many eggs in one basket is a good idea?

A point that's concerned Naval minds since the advent of Atomic weapons.

Smaller units (destroyers/frigates) can carry pretty impressive VLS numbers and a decent claibre gun for fire support.

From County class onwards the RN has felt it's better to have as many ships as is reasonably possible of as reasonable a standard as possible. Rather than concentrate everything into a handful of assets that impose a catastrophic effect if even one is lost.

 

[Firefinder]

The biggest deal with a modern cruiser.

Will be it having a MASSIVE radar array.

Like the theorical 20 cube Spy6.

And likely getting load with modernize KIE or VPM type missile modules.

So basically the Zumwalts but with a bigger radar and enhanced CIC for flag staff.

Thats what we are looking for in a modern cruiser these days.

Other then that a Burke or Constellation size vessels will do 95 percent of the jobs just fine.

It really only in BMD and heavy Cell load that those two suffer in.

 

[Desertfox]

Modern destroyers are the size of WWII heavy cruisers. DDG(X) is a cruiser in all but name.

 

[TomS]

Modern destroyers are the size of WWII heavy cruisers. DDG(X) is a cruiser in all but name.

Either that, or the USN hasn't built a new cruiser since about 1960. I tend toward this view.

But then, I'm a heretic who thinks that terms like cruiser, destroyer, frigate, etc. are largely irrelevant and probably should have died out about 1960. The Soviets were on to something with their Bol'shoy Raketny Korabl' (Large rocket ships), Maly Protivolodochny Korabl' (Small ASW ship), etc.

The USN dabbled with this -- for planning, it differentiated between battle force combatants (large, fast, high-capability ships) and ocean escorts (smaller, slower, low-end ships). But it could never quite commit to the terms as actual designations. For a brief while, DE officially stood for Ocean Escort, but the derivation from Destroyer Escort was always obvious. That's as close as they came.

 

[Firefinder]

Also need to be pointed out the size of late and post war cruisers.

AKA the 15,000 ton Worcester class and 20,000 ton Des Moines class.

At 15,000 ton the Long Beach was actually very small for what one will expect a cruiser made nearly 15 years after those two.

Even the RN light cruiser Designs were pushing upwards of 15k plus.

Ship sizes historically tend to grow, and its been closer to a century then not to when WW2 cruisers were made.

By all rights a modern Cruiser be pushing over 20k much like the soviet Kirovs are.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also need to be pointed out the size of late and post war cruisers.

AKA the 15,000 ton Worcester class and 20,000 ton Des Moines class.

At 15,000 ton the Long Beach was actually very small for what one will expect a cruiser made nearly 15 years after those two.

Even the RN light cruiser Designs were pushing upwards of 15k plus.

Ship sizes historically tend to grow, and its been closer to a century then not to when WW2 cruisers were made.

By all rights a modern Cruiser be pushing over 20k much like the soviet Kirovs are.

Agreed, the "no more than 10k tons" metric is a hangover from the Washington and London Naval treaties.

 

[uk 75]

The question is what weapons require a Kirov size ship?
Missiles are the obvious reply. Bigger missiles than those carried in current US ships. Presumably with more range and bigger payloads?
Alternatively the ships might carry a new design of heavy gun or an aviation component of F35Bs, UAVs or helicopters.