Cruiser thread

>>32161131
>What does the future hold
Eventual decommissioning

>>32161131

Rust. Lots of rust.

Being sold to the Gillette company, you'll be shaving with that ship in a few years.

File: heavy_cruiser_USS_Astoria_CA34_on_gunfire_support_exercise_off_Hawaii_1942.jpg (541KB, 1200x862px)

541KB, 1200x862px

Obsolescence and sink-exes.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 454x324px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 454x324px

>>32161135
What's Americas replacement ? The ticonderogas are renowned for excellent ballistic missile shield capabilities
Will America just build more arleigh burkes ? Will there be a new cruiser for the USN ?

Chinese missile food.

>>32161131
Retirement

>>32161322
There will probably will be one, but it's far off enough that speculation at this point is pointless.

>>32161322
What is the advantage of the cruiser of the destroyer? An extra gun and a few more cells? That's nothing to scoff at, but probably doesn't justify the cost.

>>32161322
Flight III Burkes are getting the developments from the CG(X) program. The real replacement for the Ticonderoga class is up in the air right now.

>>32161397
>Chinese missile

HA!

>>32161322
Maybe, Idk, I'm not the USN.

They'll replace it with something. It was more my point that it's aging and it will be replaced "shortly" for lack of a better term.


It's worth pointing out that the platform really doesn't indicate the performance of its weapons. You could put ESSM VLS on a large enough speedboat (yuge speedboat I guess) and have another one carry around similar targeting radar's and it would do the same job.

>It's an extreme example, not to be taken literally.

>>32161460
At this point? Nothing.

File: LbH8u4V.jpg (21KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x270px

>>32161322

>What's Americas replacement

>>32161460

Larger size allows for more redundancies and additional room for active defenses as well as passive defenses if you're one of those faggots that still believes in the thing. Plus unlike a destroyer, cruisers are not tied to protecting a specific formation, allowing them to do side stuff like hunting pirates or act as skirmishers hitting from places you wouldn't expect a surface ship to hit, acting as reinforcments to an area's air defense.

Of course, the distinction between destroyers and cruisers has become meaningless as the Zumwalt is larger than both in spite of its classification.

>>32161576
>That straight vertical face
JUST FUCK MY RADAR RETURN UP SENPAI

File: 51J6N0N08ML.jpg (38KB, 297x475px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 297x475px

What is the probability of a scaled down CG(X) program type cruiser being ordered?

>>32162459
Nil, considering the Zumwalt crashed and burned and the CGX doesn't even have mockups

It's going to be flight IV burkes

Tics and Burkes should be replaced with a nuclear powered ship.

Fuck the foreign port issue. We need a navy that isn't dependent on oilers and port calls during war time.

>>32161576
Source on this ?

File: image.jpg (40KB, 490x300px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 490x300px

>>32162485
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

Probably because of shit like this

>>32161460
The cruisers are actually cheaper. They also have 25% more missiles and a 50% longer operational range.

>>32162489
A BMD San Antonio is what Ingalls is offering, not what the Tico's replacement has been decided upon.

>288 VLS cells and SPY-3 radar

>>32162611
>a 50% longer operational range

Fascinating lie.

File: ca-148-usn-newport-news1.jpg (78KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x600px

>>32161131

Cruisers are an obsolete class of warship. The last type of real cruiser operated by the United States was the Des-Moines class. The Ticonderogas are actually a class of guided-missile destroyer. They were simply re-branded as cruisers for purely political reasons.

>>32162740
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser
>6000 nmi at 20 knots

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer
>4400 nmi at 20 knots

Sorry, it's actually around 40%.

>>32161460
Current VLS have a maximum size or maximum number of cells because detonation risk and compartmentalization. Cruisers carry a second separate VLS block.

I'm not saying VLS couldn't be redesigned so they could be bigger. Just that, currently, cruiser implies 2 VLS blocks, destroyer is 1 VLS block, making a significant design step change.

>>32162812
>wikipedia
>no citations

Fascinating lie.

>>32162815
Don't post if you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>32162846
Since you apparently have a citation to prove that a larger ship doesn't have a larger fuel reserve, please share.

>>32162742
honestly id say, rather, that all destroyers are now cruisers.

Modern destroyers are capable of independent operation and have considerable range. Thats all a cruiser ever was, a ship that was capable of operating apart from the main battle fleet. Early destroyers couldn't even leave the coasts.

>>32162936

For the most part, its interchangeable now. Even the Kirovs are just really big destroyers.

File: last stand of the yamato.jpg (41KB, 550x382px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 550x382px

Good

>Scrapyard
>Museum
>SINKEX

Bad

>Russian and Chinese subs send them to Davy Jones' faggoty ass locker
>Swarmed and sunk by cheap drones armed with even cheaper missiles
>Scuttled by their own crews after being irreparably damaged
>Missile is cooked off by by a traitorous member of the crew and the ship is torn apart from the magazine detonating (Second American Civil War scenario only)

>>32162860
Search ' "double ended" VLS ' . There's a large debate around this problem/layout/situation.

I'm not saying this is a definition of cruiser, rather, but this is what defines cruisers at the moment - i.e. they are significantly bigger, big enough to allow for full size double ended VLS.

>>32162897
The two classes are nearly identical in length and tonnage.

Since you have refused to back up your claim I think it is safe to say you were talking out of your ass.

>>32163890
Again, you shouldn't post if you have no idea what you are talking about.

Both Ticonderoga's and Arleigh Burke's have 2 VLS blocks. Zumwalts technically have 4.

>>32163967
>full sized

BTW, I can see from you're post history that your a nigger

>>32161322
The Tico replacement will have Mk 57 VLS, AN/SPY-6 (or successor), laser CIWS, and railguns. Perhaps the hull will look like a larger Zumwalt, or it'll be something more conventional to keep costs down.

Unfortunately, the replacement won't happen until the 2030s at the earliest. Carriers and subs and their replacement programs are more pressing needs right now.

>>32162936
>>32163275
Or we could just do a proper reclassification move and make all these overly huge """destroyers""" officially recognized as cruisers now.

>>32163967

The ones on Zumwalt aren't blocks, they are rows. Each array is 1x20 cells, two on the front, two in the back.

Serve on one. Latest revision of Aegis.

File: 9f0.jpg (30KB, 662x644px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 662x644px

>>32164775
>yfw the only kill a Tico has ever got is a civillian airliner
Nice combat system americucks, couldn't even tell between a fighter and people mover