USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,604
Reaction score
111
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
8,617
Reaction score
69
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
3,130
Reaction score
67
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
101
Reaction score
4
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
983
Reaction score
13
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