A modern cruiser?

[Martes]

There will be a flight deck…for helicopters.

Japanese example (Hyuga et al) tells us that where you can put a helicopter, you can put a VSTOL, if you happen to get it. So why not plan for this from the beginning? (Yes, there is a limitation that there is no point of putting less than 6 jets on a ship, but if you plan for more helicopters, it's already an option).

For the US, I think you're going to end up with 3 different types of VLS outright. The standard Mk41, Mk57 PVLS around the helo deck (assuming no deck park), and the big-tube VPMs for hypersonics.

Superstructure. Part of those go into the superstructure. Part into the deck - at the expense of deck parking and maybe somewhat reducing the hangar. The small AAW missile launchers can be fitted on sponsons. Part of strike package may be delegated to airgroup.

200 cells combined with aircraft capability would fit - roughly - in 25-30ktons. But if you cut the aircraft capability and squeeze the missiles into a 20kt hull (which is of course technically possible), the ship's operational envelope shrinks to horizon limit and would depend on external information sources. It would be problematic even to defend your own AEW helicopter at some distance.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Japanese example (Hyuga et al) tells us that where you can put a helicopter, you can put a VSTOL, if you happen to get it. So why not plan for this from the beginning? (Yes, there is a limitation that there is no point of putting less than 6 jets on a ship, but if you plan for more helicopters, it's already an option).


Superstructure. Part of those go into the superstructure. Part into the deck - at the expense of deck parking and maybe somewhat reducing the hangar. The small AAW missile launchers can be fitted on sponsons. Part of strike package may be delegated to airgroup.

200 cells combined with aircraft capability would fit - roughly - in 25-30ktons. But if you cut the aircraft capability and squeeze the missiles into a 20kt hull (which is of course technically possible), the ship's operational envelope shrinks to horizon limit and would depend on external information sources. It would be problematic even to defend your own AEW helicopter at some distance.

The were building aircraft carriers while circumventing the then current interpretation of their laws, and even then, it’s not ‘where you can put a helicopter you can put a harrier/f35. The ships still needed to go through a major overhaul to prepare the deck for the heat of the down thrust of the f-35b

And realistically I think 10-12would be the minimum. 3-4 on CAP, 3-4 on rapid standby, 3-4 on secondary standby and 3-4 in maintenance.

2 on CAP, and only 2 quickly available doesn’t make much sense, it doesn’t leave any room for an unexpected issue taking one or two down for a day or more.

With 12 even if two have an unexpected breakage at the same time before they’re turn in maintenance, there’s still enough to run a decent CAP, and provide those guys backup if necessary.

HHI’s BMD concept ship is based on the San Antonio class, is capable of operating several MH60s, and I think they said up to 400 VLS iirc.
You could pretty easily fit 200 VLS and hangar and flight deck for 2 helos on an 18k ton ship, and still have room for some NSMs, and a deck gun.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I’d love to know where you’re pulling those numbers from.

Back in 2018, someone posted the missile loadout for a Tico.

But as for the 200 cell thing, HHI’s BMD ship, plus has a big flight deck, and hangar deck capable of operating at least 1 osprey.

Only issue is it’s relatively slow. Still think there has to be some way around that if an engineer actually put their brains towards it.

Isn't that built on a San Antonio hull? So it's kinda chunky and needs a lot of horsepower to go fast?

The were building aircraft carriers while circumventing the then current interpretation of their laws, and even then, it’s not ‘where you can put a helicopter you can put a harrier/f35. The ships still needed to go through a major overhaul to prepare the deck for the heat of the down thrust of the f-35b

Which happens to be the same level of heating caused by Ospreys, apparently.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Back in 2018, someone posted the missile loadout for a Tico.



Isn't that built on a San Antonio hull? So it's kinda chunky and needs a lot of horsepower to go fast?





Which happens to be the same level of heating caused by Ospreys, apparently.

Depends on how we define fast. Wiki has San Antonio as 22kts, some adjustments to the hull form might be able to get it up to 24-25kts.

I still maintain the opinion that ‘keeping up with a carrier’ is a stupid requirement because it would take a carrier something like 8 hours at 30kts to get out of ESSM range of a ship going 22kts, and a day or more to get out of range of a the standard missile family’s protection bubble.

Never heard of ospreys producing that much heat towards the deck on takeoff.
Do you have anything on that?

Edit
Google AI overview says osprey produces 515 degrees of downward heat and an f35 produces over 1300 degrees of downward heat.
And google says steel begins to weaken at 797 degrees.

 

[EmoBirb]

But why are we trying to turn LHD/As into cruisers is my question.

Good question

I just saw the topic of flat decks with missiles aka aviation cruisers brought up and chimed in (alternatives to the Soviet layouts).

 

[EmoBirb]

Then you can add the offensive missiles: land attack missiles and antiship missiles. Some of those land attack missiles maybe hypersonics, and most hypersonics are larger than 21" VLS cells can support. Based on US examples, we're talking another 30-40 land attack missiles, a dozen or so dedicated AShMs, and then the hypersonics.

That may be an argument for an aviation cruiser though. Given that offensive operations against ships, submarines and land targets would be "outsourced" to the jets and helicopters on board. While the VLS cells serve a purely defensive purpose. Essentially forgoing any offensive armament in favor of aviation facilities and defensive systems on the ship itself. Meaning overall less cells are needed as the available ones can be completely dedicated to missile defense. While helicopters deal with the submerged threat.

So essentially something like an Izumo or one of the early America LHA, perhaps a bit smaller and with VLS integrated. Independent operations across a wide variety of missions could be achieved I think. But such a ship may be a "too many eggs in one basket" situation.

 

[johnpjones1775]

That may be an argument for an aviation cruiser though. Given that offensive operations against ships, submarines and land targets would be "outsourced" to the jets and helicopters on board. While the VLS cells serve a purely defensive purpose. Essentially forgoing any offensive armament in favor of aviation facilities and defensive systems on the ship itself.

Honestly, unless you’re going with something about 25k tons you won’t have enough fixed wing aircraft for offensive operations imho, all fixed wing assets would be for CAP, which could reduce the number of SAMs needed, opening space in cells or on deck for offensive missiles.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Can we please move on from the idea of a flattop ‘cruiser’ operating fixed wing manned aircraft now, and discuss an actual cruiser concept?

 

[EmoBirb]

Can we please move on from the idea of a flattop ‘cruiser’ operating fixed wing manned aircraft now, and discuss an actual cruiser concept?

I think the main issue comes down (repeatedly) to what constitutes a cruiser in the modern context. Something not even we in this comparatively small forum can agree on.

If it's just a large surface combatant with plenty of missiles and powerful radar, than the East Asian 3 (Sejong the Great, Type 055, Maya) are living embodiments of what a modern cruiser looks like. The concepts of Japan's ASEV (a large, high endurance, anti ballistic missile ship) and arguably the American DDG(X) (across the board improvement over the ABs while also taking over roles of the Ticonderoga) would fit the bill as what one might refer to as a "cruiser".

So if one is willing to categorize them as such, they are emblematic of how a cruiser would be designed in the modern context. Meaning: large surface combatant (around 10K tons loaded), lots of VLS cells (more than 90), high powered radar to deal with multiple aerial threats at once, arguably flag facilities to grant the ability to command and manage air-warfare operations of a larger battlegroup and execute other command functions.

On that note, I once again express my hope for a revival of naval treaties like the ones OKof old, which legislate classification and displacement of vessels like they did in the early 20th century. But I'm also aware how unlikely it is to be achieved today. Although I believe the parties in the Western Pacific naval arms race (America, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and India) could benefit from it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

discuss an actual cruiser concept?

So, large ship able to be off by itself, with space for Flag level C&C for when it's the convoy flagship or AAW flag for a carrier? Using cruise, hypersonic, and antiship missiles as the offensive weapons?

Able to go long times without port visits if necessary, which means large food and spare parts supplies, plus a machine shop able to make parts not immediately on hand. And lots of fuel storage. Possibly including a microelectronics repair shop, so that individual bad cards can be repaired on-site instead of having to mail them back to shore to be fixed.

Space for at least 2-3 good sized helicopters, plus all their fuel, maintenance tools, spare parts, etc for that "long times between port visits". I think I'd want at least 5-7 helicopters if it's supposed to be out hunting submarines alone. 4-5 helicopters to rotate through flying, 1 on hot standby, 1 in maintenance, and 1 spare. Note that the dedicated ASW stuff might be outsourceable to drones, but that only replaces some of the helicopters. Gotta keep 2-3 manned helicopters for other missions, like hauling personnel around or SAR.

Obviously the sensors for all of the threats. Big ABM-capable radar, surface-search radar, hull sonar, towed array sonar. EO sensors providing a 360 watch with daytime, low-light, and thermal cameras.

Does this sound like the items needed for a "cruiser"? Is there something blatantly missing?



========================

Defensively, you're going to need ABMs, anti-hypersonics, Long range AA missiles, medium range AA missiles, short range AA missiles, antisubmarine missiles, and your point defenses. So we're talking a dozen of each of the fancy types, and probably 5 dozen medium range missiles. The Short-range AA missiles multi-pack, so they share a "dozen" (cells) with the ASW missiles. That's 9 dozen cells, just for your defenses. ~108 missile cells.

How many missiles do we want for offense? ~3-4 dozen seems to be the current load, but that's without any of the hypersonic missiles. Let's say 32x cruise missiles and at least 8x antiship missiles is the current standard. I think the VPM-based hypersonic cells hold 4 birds, so I'm going to say ~16-24x hypersonics, keeping at least 24x cruise missiles, and then 8x antiship missiles. 24-32x additional "small" missile cells, ~140x Mk41 and/or PVLS, 6x VPMs.

Point defenses. RAM launcher or two. CIWS guns, though they could be as big as an OTO 76mm supraponte, the 57mm Mk110, or even "just" a Phalanx CIWS. At least 4x CROWS mounts with a 30x113 on them for anti-small-boats (these also get a big laser dazzler and an LRAD installed, to yell "hey stupid" even if you don't speak the local language). If the industry can provide them, a pair or more of 100+kw lasers.

Does anyone see weapons I am missing, or maybe carrying too much of?

 

[Scott Kenny]

On that note, I once again express my hope for a revival of naval treaties of old, which legislate classification and displacement of vessels like they did in the early 20th century. But I'm also aware how unlikely it is to be achieved today. Although I believe the parties in the Western Pacific naval arms race (America, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and India) could benefit from it.

I don't think that the current scene is quite so acutely bankrupting in terms of the numbers of new ships needed versus contracting national budgets, so I do not think that there will be any "New London Naval Treaty"

 

[Martes]

Can we please move on from the idea of a flattop ‘cruiser’ operating fixed wing manned aircraft now, and discuss an actual cruiser concept?

It would probably be easier if you list it in terms of requirements and capabilities.

Does anyone see weapons I am missing, or maybe carrying too much of?

Sounds like something between an Arsenal ship and a very-very-very modern Kirov. But how do you propose to handle over-the-horizon threats, targeting and AEW?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sounds like something between an Arsenal ship and a very-very-very modern Kirov. But how do you propose to handle over-the-horizon threats, targeting and AEW?

Helos and/or drones.

 

[Martes]

Helos and/or drones.

Let's say AEW helicopter is deployed. How do you protect it from approaching enemy fighter that flies at low altitude and is only detectable by the same helicopter?

 

[johnpjones1775]

I think the main issue comes down (repeatedly) to what constitutes a cruiser in the modern context. Something not even we in this comparatively small forum can agree on.

If it's just a large surface combatant with plenty of missiles and powerful radar, than the East Asian 3 (Sejong the Great, Type 055, Maya) are living embodiments of what a modern cruiser looks like. The concepts of Japan's ASEV (a large, high endurance, anti ballistic missile ship) and arguably the American DDG(X) (across the board improvement over the ABs while also taking over roles of the Ticonderoga) would fit the bill as what one might refer to as a "cruiser".

So if one is willing to categorize them as such, they are emblematic of how a cruiser would be designed in the modern context. Meaning: large surface combatant (around 10K tons loaded), lots of VLS cells (more than 90), high powered radar to deal with multiple aerial threats at once, arguably flag facilities to grant the ability to command and manage air-warfare operations of a larger battlegroup and execute other command functions.

On that note, I once again express my hope for a revival of naval treaties like the ones OKof old, which legislate classification and displacement of vessels like they did in the early 20th century. But I'm also aware how unlikely it is to be achieved today. Although I believe the parties in the Western Pacific naval arms race (America, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and India) could benefit from it.

I already posted a very reasonable classification system.
People just like to side track things.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It would probably be easier if you list it in terms of requirements and capabilities.


Sounds like something between an Arsenal ship and a very-very-very modern Kirov. But how do you propose to handle over-the-horizon threats, targeting and AEW?

I have literally already done that like 2 or 3 pages ago. Maybe 4

Let's say AEW helicopter is deployed. How do you protect it from approaching enemy fighter that flies at low altitude and is only detectable by the same helicopter?

the helicopter detects, the ship engages…

 

[Martes]

I have literally already done that like 2 or 3 pages ago. Maybe 4

Could you be so kind and provide a link?

the helicopter detects, the ship engages…

Unfortunately it's not that easy. The anti-air missiles, especially long range (we are talking about 40-60 miles from the ship, and with current AAW missiles it may exceed 100 miles easily) require target tracking that usually is performed by their own tracking/illumination radars. It's not the same as the radar installed on the AEW helicopter, so you would need to install an additional radar on the helicopter, than provide data links that would take the missile handling from the ship and to the helicopter, and that's before the fighter launches it's own missiles at the helicopter. In short, in absence of local air superiority it's a rather grim prospect.

 

[EmoBirb]

I already posted a very reasonable classification system.
People just like to side track things.

That's exactly what I meant though. There is no official classification, so we make stuff up. And even a small community like ours can't even agree on the stuff we made up ourselves.

It may be reasonable or even logical, but it's at the end of the day arbitrary, unofficial and not internationally recognized.

Another issue is that even if the US were to lay out what's a cruiser in their eyes and write it down in a classification guide for the USN, it wouldn't apply to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, Europeans or Koreans.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Could you be so kind and provide a link?


Unfortunately it's not that easy. The anti-air missiles, especially long range (we are talking about 40-60 miles from the ship, and with current AAW missiles it may exceed 100 miles easily) require target tracking that usually is performed by their own tracking/illumination radars. It's not the same as the radar installed on the AEW helicopter, so you would need to install an additional radar on the helicopter, than provide data links that would take the missile handling from the ship and to the helicopter, and that's before the fighter launches it's own missiles at the helicopter. In short, in absence of local air superiority it's a rather grim prospect.

My mistake, it was the FFG(X) thread.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ffg-x.33649/page-34#post-801958

 

[Martes]

My mistake, it was the FFG(X) thread.

A 10k ton ship with high end radar, sonar, and flag facilities, with 80+ VLS should be a cruiser.

That's attempt at classification, but it does not really answer the requirements and capabilities question. It's a rather minimal set of equipment a ship of this size would have anyway.

If it's just a large surface combatant with plenty of missiles and powerful radar, than the East Asian 3 (Sejong the Great, Type 055, Maya) are living embodiments of what a modern cruiser looks like. The concepts of Japan's ASEV (a large, high endurance, anti ballistic missile ship)

Those ships fit this description nicely and there is apparently no real need to go further, only adjust one of these projects to the inventory of a navy in question.

What I meant by requirements and capabilities was what exactly do you want the ship to be able to do and how do you want it to achieve it, and what are the required constraints (i.e. displacement not over X, armament not less than Y, endurance not less than Z).

 

[EmoBirb]

I think we also have to ask us the question if there are tangible benefits to calling a vessel a cruiser rather than a destroyer or frigate. Given that in function there is no distinction.

 

[mokahete]

I think we also have to ask us the question if there are tangible benefits to calling a vessel a cruiser rather than a destroyer or frigate. Given that in function there is no distinction.

That's what I thought.
Hence my choice of categorizing them by weight/displacement.
It may not be the best metric/most informed metric/reasonable metric, but it's the only metric that is somewhat relevant.

Now there are/can be disagreements on which vessel of what displacement is called what.
But in modern navies, if a X ton ship is called a Destroyer then a X++ ton ship will not be called a Frigate, it will also be called a Destroyer or a Cruiser.

 

[johnpjones1775]

That's attempt at classification, but it does not really answer the requirements and capabilities question. It's a rather minimal set of equipment a ship of this size would have anyway.


Those ships fit this description nicely and there is apparently no real need to go further, only adjust one of these projects to the inventory of a navy in question.

What I meant by requirements and capabilities was what exactly do you want the ship to be able to do and how do you want it to achieve it, and what are the required constraints (i.e. displacement not over X, armament not less than Y, endurance not less than Z).

Requirements and capability question is covered by sensors and VLS, as well as flag space.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I think we also have to ask us the question if there are tangible benefits to calling a vessel a cruiser rather than a destroyer or frigate. Given that in function there is no distinction.

Public perception perhaps.
During peacetime when a population is adverse to military spending or a climate where they’re adverse to offensive military spending, the title could make a ship an easier sell to law makers and the people than a destroyer.

Cruisers have a certain level of prestige like carriers or battleships historically, so sending a ‘cruiser’ to do port visits or FONOPs could send a different message than a frigate or destroyer.

 

[johnpjones1775]

That's what I thought.
Hence my choice of categorizing them by weight/displacement.
It may not be the best metric/most informed metric/reasonable metric, but it's the only metric that is somewhat relevant.

Now there are/can be disagreements on which vessel of what displacement is called what.
But in modern navies, if a X ton ship is called a Destroyer then a X++ ton ship will not be called a Frigate, it will also be called a Destroyer or a Cruiser.

Weight/size is the least relevant metric…by that logic we should call zumwalt battleships, or at least per-dreadnoughts.

I think most can agree classifications should have more meaning than big/medium/small.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The issue I have with denomination of ship class is the media/government policy vis a vis public perception.

Whatever you call it, they will continue to 'factualise it' into Lalalala land language. The media love to call ships 'Battleships' when it suits their narrative of events, which is always done to sensationalise rather than inform.

Whatever you call it, the media will bastardise it into something else for their own interests and the government are not much better.

Perhaps have a lot of fifteen/twenty thousand ton 'Dinghy's'?

Perhaps a nuclear powered SRIB is going too far.

 

[mokahete]

Weight/size is the least relevant metric…by that logic we should call zumwalt battleships, or at least per-dreadnoughts.

I think most can agree classifications should have more meaning than big/medium/small.

But do "most" follow the classification with most meaning?
By relevant I meant, pattern seen in real world classification by navies.
Once again, A modern day navy which consider X ton ship to be a destroyer, does not categories an X++ ton ship as a Frigate, it will be called a Destroyer or a Cruiser.

 

[johnpjones1775]

But do "most" follow the classification with most meaning?
By relevant I meant, pattern seen in real world classification by navies.
Once again, A modern day navy which consider X ton ship to be a destroyer, does not categories an X++ ton ship as a Frigate, it will be called a Destroyer or a Cruiser.

So would a 15k ton ship with 32 VLS, and mid tier radar class as a cruiser to you?

 

[mokahete]

So would a 15k ton ship with 32 VLS, and mid tier radar class as a cruiser to you?

A pretty pathetic cruiser sized vessel I would say.
But again, that type of ship if it existed will be a "rare exception" at most, like those gaint German quote "frigates".
Most large ships in modern times are built as top end warships( type 055, sejong the great, Maya, zumwalt etc).

 

[EmoBirb]

A pretty pathetic cruiser sized vessel I would say.
But again, that type of ship if it existed will be a "rare exception" at most, like those gaint German quote "frigates".
Most large ships in modern times are built as top end warships( type 055, sejong the great, Maya, zumwalt etc).

I'm unsure if the Zumwalt could be counted among these. With "only" 80 Mk 57 cells for a ship that comes in at well over 10.000t

At least in it's current form. With the CPS modules that will obviously shift it's prowess significantly towards the higher end of modern warships.

 

[johnpjones1775]

A pretty pathetic cruiser sized vessel I would say.
But again, that type of ship if it existed will be a "rare exception" at most, like those gaint German quote "frigates".
Most large ships in modern times are built as top end warships( type 055, sejong the great, Maya, zumwalt etc).

Why is that a pathetic sized cruiser? It would be larger than almost all of those listed, and would be a top end warship in its own right.

Besides aren’t you the one that said size was the most important factor?

Again, personally I believe that a ship’s relative combat capability that is inherent to the ship should be considered the most important factor, size means very little in the end. A frigate could be abnormally large to accommodate larger crews and more perishables, and even more relatively low end weapons.

Wouldn’t put it past the Italians to want a ship that’s an enlarged version of the horizon class more geared at counter drone work, so they keep the same number of VLS, but add a pair of 40mk4s or something similar to both sides, and adding a pair of RAM one on each side. That would likely increase the length significantly, increasing weight, plus they’d likely need more magazines for all that extra ammo adding more weight to the ship. Probably wouldn’t get them over 10k tons full load, but you get my point about how weight doesn’t mean much I hope.

 

[mokahete]

Why is that a pathetic sized cruiser? It would be larger than almost all of those listed, and would be a top end warship in its own right.

Besides aren’t you the one that said size was the most important factor?

Again, personally I believe that a ship’s relative combat capability that is inherent to the ship should be considered the most important factor, size means very little in the end. A frigate could be abnormally large to accommodate larger crews and more perishables, and even more relatively low end weapons.

Wouldn’t put it past the Italians to want a ship that’s an enlarged version of the horizon class more geared at counter drone work, so they keep the same number of VLS, but add a pair of 40mk4s or something similar to both sides, and adding a pair of RAM one on each side. That would likely increase the length significantly, increasing weight, plus they’d likely need more magazines for all that extra ammo adding more weight to the ship. Probably wouldn’t get them over 10k tons full load, but you get my point about how weight doesn’t mean much I hope.

You seem to have entirely misunderstood My comment, and fighting a different argument.

I'm not proposing new classification, I'm saying in current world where there are lots of blurred lines between capabilities and roles of surface combatants( I.e corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers) the only "relevant/ relatively consistent " metric for "general" classification/understanding remain their displacement, with rare exceptions.

I'm not arguing, which way to classify is better, which way warships" should be" classified, which metrics " should be" prioritised, which metrics "should be" relevant.

 

[johnpjones1775]

You seem to have entirely misunderstood My comment, and fighting a different argument.

I'm not proposing new classification, I'm saying in current world where there are lots of blurred lines between capabilities and roles of surface combatants( I.e corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers) the only "relevant/ relatively consistent " metric for "general" classification/understanding remain their displacement, with rare exceptions.

I'm not arguing, which way to classify is better, which way warships" should be" classified, which metrics " should be" prioritised, which metrics "should be" relevant.

And I’m telling you that you’re 100% wrong.
Displacement is not a relevant method of determining classification of ships, particularly because every generation of new designs has increased ship sizes, and again size tells you nothing important about the ship or its capabilities.

As an example the absalon class weighs in at 6600tons. As a surface combatant you’d expect quite a bit of capability in AAW, ASW, and ASuW out of that right?

You’d be wrong. It’s armament is essentially that of a corvette, or a heavily armed OPV.

ASuW LCSes are undoubtedly more heavily armed and more capable at 3500 tons.
Hell the MCM armed LCSes are comparably armed at 3100 tons.

As mentioned previously germany has frigates widely considering under armed based on their displacement.
River class OPVs are heavily under armed for their size.

Displacement is almost completely irrelevant to capabilities.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The were building aircraft carriers while circumventing the then current interpretation of their laws

No, the Hyuga class ended up with a flight-deck as a result of experience with the Haruna class and Shirane class DDHs, specifically the difficulty of operating three helicopters from ships with only two landing spots and two sets of helicopter recovery and traversing gear. The flight-deck gives them four landing spots the ability to launch and recover three ASW helicopters simultaneously (they also have a minesweeping helicopter as part of their standard air group).

 

[johnpjones1775]

No, the Hyuga class ended up with a flight-deck as a result of experience with the Haruna class and Shirane class DDHs, specifically the difficulty of operating three helicopters from ships with only two landing spots and two sets of helicopter recovery and traversing gear. The flight-deck gives them four landing spots the ability to launch and recover three ASW helicopters simultaneously (they also have a minesweeping helicopter as part of their standard air group).

And it’s just a total coincidence that they announced plans to convertthem to full on VSTOL carriers a few years after they were all built…right?

 

[shin_getter]

Weight/size is the least relevant metric…by that logic we should call zumwalt battleships, or at least per-dreadnoughts.

I think most can agree classifications should have more meaning than big/medium/small.

With ships having basically the same combat methodology in the missile age, perhaps one should adapt ship of line classification.

Rating system of the Royal Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However in the modern era there is sensors and aircrafts on top of main weapon. In my opinion, to simplify language, one can take the average capability in weapon/sensor/aircraft as a baseline, sorted so you have first/second/third/fourth/fifth rate line combatant.

Ships with capability that deviate from the norm would be described by the most powerful capability: eg. first rate aviation ship, second rate sensor ship, second rate arsenal ship.

The final piece of information to normalize everything would be to add year to normalize the categorization as ships naturally become lower rated over time.

Whatever you call it, the media will bastardise it into something else for their own interests and the government are not much better.

Perhaps have a lot of fifteen/twenty thousand ton 'Dinghy's'?

Just call it boaty mcboatface

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

And it’s just a total coincidence that they announced plans to convertthem to full on VSTOL carriers a few years after they were all built…right?

That was for the larger Izumo-class, the Hyūga-class are still limited to helicopters.

Izumo-class are marginally larger than the Invincible class (for an example of another aircraft-carrying cruiser) and can theoretically carry a marginally larger airwing of 28 aircraft, although my understanding is that in practice the Japanese operate much smaller helicopter-only airwings.

 

[johnpjones1775]

With ships having basically the same combat methodology in the missile age, perhaps one should adapt ship of line classification.

Rating system of the Royal Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However in the modern era there is sensors and aircrafts on top of main weapon. In my opinion, to simplify language, one can take the average capability in weapon/sensor/aircraft as a baseline, sorted so you have first/second/third/fourth/fifth rate line combatant.

Ships with capability that deviate from the norm would be described by the most powerful capability: eg. first rate aviation ship, second rate sensor ship, second rate arsenal ship.

The final piece of information to normalize everything would be to add year to normalize the categorization as ships naturally become lower rated over time.


Just call it boaty mcboatface

As I’ve said a combination of sensor quality and VLS count for surface combatants

 

[johnpjones1775]

That was for the larger Izumo-class, the Hyūga-class are still limited to helicopters.

Izumo-class are marginally larger than the Invincible class (for an example of another aircraft-carrying cruiser) and can theoretically carry a marginally larger airwing of 28 aircraft, although my understanding is that in practice the Japanese operate much smaller helicopter-only airwings.

My bad I got the two classes confused

 

[Scott Kenny]

As I’ve said a combination of sensor quality and VLS count for surface combatants

Tube count is easy, coming up with a good measure for sensor quality is the challenge.

I still stand by my count for missiles, a cruiser needing more than 100 "tactical-length" missile cells and another 30+ "strike-length" Mk41 or PVLS plus 6x APMs or MLS (24x birds) for hypersonics. (Note that I support the continued use of PVLS as a way to sneak another 50+ft of usable missile cell area on each side of the Helo deck.)

Call it "over 150 missile cells" as the minimum for a cruiser in terms of weapons. This would make the Japanese ASEVs not meet the definition of cruiser, not enough missile cells (and arguably insufficient offensive missiles fitted). And that'd make the MSDF happy.

What say you all, Destroyers have over 100 missile cells? Frigates have over 50?


Saying "better radar than a Burke" is probably the appropriate floor for a cruiser, but I'd like a more formal definition than that.

I believe that "equipped with SPY6V1 or SPY7V1" should be the sensor floor for US-allies cruisers.

Or were you wanting to go back to the "Rate" system? Not to mention, how would that work since there's no battleships anymore? "Cruisers" 1st-3rd rate, Destroyers 4th rate, Frigates 5th rate, and anything under that as "unrated"?