• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
Very good to hear. Now they need to get the Northrop Grumman Modular Launch System installed where the aft turret goes.
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,991
Reaction score
194
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
The US hasn't built a cruiser to traditional cruiser standards since 1959. And those standards are pretty much no longer relevant. For most of the cold war, the only thing that really differentiated a destroyer from a cruiser was the presence of space for a squadron or air warfare commander staff. I agree we need to build ships large enough to carry modern combat systems with room for growth and ease of access. Whether we call them cruisers or destroyers is irrelevant, just a game of semantics. Frankly, calling this new warships a Large Surface Combatant is better in some ways, because it doesn't carry the baggage of people complaining that a destroyer can't be 14,000 tons or whatever.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
104
Reaction score
6
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
There is no viable armor that will protect your ship against a couple of tons of missile moving at mach 3+. Not getting hit is a far better strategy.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
The US hasn't built a cruiser to traditional cruiser standards since 1959. And those standards are pretty much no longer relevant. For most of the cold war, the only thing that really differentiated a destroyer from a cruiser was the presence of space for a squadron or air warfare commander staff. I agree we need to build ships large enough to carry modern combat systems with room for growth and ease of access. Whether we call them cruisers or destroyers is irrelevant, just a game of semantics. Frankly, calling this new warships a Large Surface Combatant is better in some ways, because it doesn't carry the baggage of people complaining that a destroyer can't be 14,000 tons or whatever.
I don't disagree with your thoughts, but I'd like to point out that there's a not-insignificant number of people in Congress practically begging to build a new "Cruiser" with the Ticos getting old, and it will be that much tougher to sell them on "Large Surface Combatant" if they never at least nod in that direction. So they're making more work for themselves, and let's face it the work of convincing Congress that they know what they're doing isn't something the Navy excels at these days. If it's bigger than AB (or possibly even Z, at this rate) and has space for Alpha Whiskey, just call it a bloody cruiser and stop being cute.
 
Top