Daily reminder that Cruisers are superior to Destroyers and DDG

Threadly reminder that cruisers were inefficient waste of resources even in WW2.

>>29702521
>>29702535

Is there an actual difference? They both do the same stuff.

>>29702631
Is there a difference between a shovel and a backhoe? They both do the same stuff.

They need to revive cgn(x) and make it a bigger, nuclear Zumwalt.

>>29702521
Is there even a meaningful difference between cruisers and destroyers these days? It seems that warships are pretty much in the categories of:
>submarines
>aircraft carrier
>multipurpose surface combatant (cruiser, destroyer, frigate)
>FACs
>memes (e.g. the LCS)

>>29702535

Shore bombardment in the Sicily and Italian campaigns disagrees, to say the least.

>3/10, made me respond

>>29702892
Just because they were used doesn't mean anything else would've gotten the job done more efficiently.
>0/10, got baited into making a stupid post

>>29702736
Nuclear doesn't make any sense
It's the cheapest thing in the world to ship oil by sea
Reactors cost ass tons, costs more to operate per year, then you gotta spend another billion to decommision them.

reminder that frigates destroyers and cruisers are outdated terms that basically mean the same fucking thing these days

>>29702736
Zumwalt is just a welfare program, not a real warship anon. Nobody wants it.

File: heavy_cruiser_USS_Astoria_CA34_on_gunfire_support_exercise_off_Hawaii_1942.jpg (541KB, 1200x862px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1200x862px

>>29702521
>a fucking destroyer hull

>>29705258

I want it.

>>29705117
Using 1960's tech, yeah. NRC was owned by the fossil fuel industry to cripple the only technology that could make them obsolete. Navy nuke tech hasn't improved at all since Rickover for similar reasons. Navy has outsourced all organic engineering capabilities. They are stuck 50 years in the past because MIC cost plus welfare contracts are the priority.

Listerine Fiend is that you? Has the Zumwalt thread drawn you into a steady orbit?

>>29702521
There's no serious difference. Get over it.

>>29705542

Living and working on one you see the differences.

>>29705338
>Navy nuke tech hasn't improved at all since Rickover for similar reasons.
Spotted the anon talking completely out of his ass.

>>29705117

>Nuclear doesn't make any sense

>refuel once per ship lifetime
>elimination of vulnerable logistics infrastructure
>better operational performance
>effectively endless resource supply

>>29705117
I hope you're trolling. There's a specific reason Congress asked the CG(X) program to investigate nuclear as the main fuel for the ship. And trust me, the power labs got pretty far into it before the entire program was cancelled.

>>29705191
Yep. Many "frigates" today approach destroyer tonnage. Same with modern destroyers functioning and weighing similar to cruisers. This is not even comparing the killing power.

>>29706637
Because congress are dipshits and don't know how to count?

Nuclear doesn't save money, not even for supercarriers

>>29709544
I does because nuclear ships don't need a fleet of supply ships every week to refuel

>>29709544
holy shit what?
>no refueling, therefore no refueling ops and personnel, not to mention the fuel
>doesn't need to be rebuilt every x hours of operation
>can't just break down
>don't need specially trained techs to operate it
>no shitty engine rooms
>almost no possibility of failure due to safety systems and procedures
it may not save money up front, but in the long run, nuclear power is far cheaper.
21st century battlecruisers when?

>>29710090
>but in the long run, nuclear power is far cheaper.
??
Except it isn't, and there is no "long run" when it comes to military warships
Nuclear reactors are very expensive to build, very expensive to operate, and even the refueling costs 25-30 years later cost more than all the fucking oil would have.

Conceivably reactors could be built that are cheaper, but the ones that exist now are not.
Yes you may gain capabilities from nuclear reactors, but you DON'T SAVE MONEY

>can't just break down
>don't need specially trained techs to operate it
>no shitty engine rooms
>almost no possibility of failure due to safety systems and procedures
It's a warship, with no armor, what do you think happens if it took an AShM hit?

>>29705258
It's the surface analog to the Seawolf, and that bodes well for the future.

>>29710090
>no refueling, therefore no refueling ops and personnel, not to mention the fuel
Most nuke subs and carriers get "refueled" at least once during their life and it's a huge undertaking. Granted, it's only every 10-15 years.
>doesn't need to be rebuilt every x hours of operation
Refueling and rebuilding a ship reactor is virtually synonymous, but it's only every decade or so. It's so intensive the rest of the boat gets upgraded as well.
>can't just break down
It's a machine, something will fail given enough time and stress. Though the amount of oversight(autism) the US Navy puts into reactors makes failure almost impossible.
>don't need specially trained techs to operate it
wat
>no shitty engine rooms
There's still plenty of chemicals involved. Instead of smoke and soot there's constant rad checks.
>almost no possibility of failure due to safety systems and procedures
Agreed.

>>29710122
>what do you think happens if it took an AShM hit?
Same thing if it hit a conventional powered ship, except no fuel tanks to ignite.

>>29705258
I want my naval rail guns

>>29710240
Except now the whole ship is contaminated and costs 1000 million to dispose of

>>29710273
and how much would the cleanup from all that fuel and oil and shit getting dumped into the ocean cost?
>>29710217
yeah, it will need "refueling" but that's every 20 years or so, and when it does get refueled, the whole ship gets rebuilt so it doesn't fuck everything, however it is not a massively common thing like fossil fuel ships.
and sure, something will fail - but it's not like a diesel ship where it will just throw a rod randomly, and thanks to the navy's nuclear overbuilding, failure is really unlikely.
nuclear naval power is the way of the future.

>>29710273
>implying modern ships have protective measures
>implying the reactor isn't isolated and probably the most heavily shielded thing on the boat
>implying that any hit strong enough to affect the core wouldn't just sink the ship outright
>implying naval combat is like Star Trek where core breaches happen without hull penetration
>implying SCRAM isn't a thing
>implying you'd need to decontaminate something on the abyssal plain

>>29710393
*don't have protective measures

>>29710393
You forgot:
>implying implications.

Feel better now?

>>29710474
I dunno. You obviously like fucking with people which is always depressing. On the other hand, I'm doing this on overtime pay so that's nice.

You?

>>29710217
>>29710304
Actually core densities are to the point where Virginias and subsequent boats aren't planned to be refueled for the life of the ship. We're talking 30 years for VAs and 44 years for the next boat. I don't have an idea what the Ford class is doing though.

Not to mention that building subs has becoming so buttfucking efficient. The VA program is one of if not the most successful military procurement program that's ever existed.

>>29702791
>>multipurpose surface combatant (cruiser, destroyer, frigate)

Actually, it seems more like

> Multipurpose light surface combatant, AD/ASW (frigate-destroyer)

> Multipurpose heavy surface combatant, AD/ASW/Surface Warfare/Land Attack (destroyer-cruiser).

>>29705427

Nope not me. I'm in the LCS thread atm.

>>29702521

Cruisers are destroyers with more weapons, capabilities, and accommodations for senior staff. That's pretty much my understanding of the definition.

>>29702631
an extra iluminator and a larger VLS capacity, fucking ancient hulls that are feeling their age, and reduced CBRN surviveability

>>29702685
you are fucking retarded

File: spru tico comparison.jpg (382KB, 980x1260px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 980x1260px

>>29705273
uh yeah.. wrong one though

Daily reminder that if a destroyer has armament like a cruiser, displaces as much as a cruiser and most importantly, has the RANGE of a cruiser, it's no longer a destroyer.
Don't be like retarded congressmen who eat shit like "thorough-deck cruiser" and the like.

>>29702535
Daily reminder that Cruisers are transcontinental.

>>29710393
>>implying SCRAM isn't a thing
Try telling that to the crew of the K-19.

this seems like a good navy thread
which sub would be best to work in?
the fast attack, the retrofitted boomers or the boomers?

>>29716124
The reactor SCRAMed on K-19. That didn't stop a coolant leak. Reactors stay hot after shutdown. Do you know how nuclear reactors work?