Why is this classified as a destroyer?

>>34623585
Are the criteria are...?

File: Izumo-1.jpg (2MB, 4512x3008px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4512x3008px

>>34623585
This is designated as a destroyer even tho it's an AC

File: alalam_635031942145574463_25f_4x3.jpg (54KB, 650x375px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 650x375px

>>34623595
While this is also a destroyer even tho it can barely be called as light frigate

>>34623591
Displacement and armament.

>>34623595
Helicopter destroyer, anon. The JSDF is determined to only defend itself and totally not seeking to project force with aircraft carriers :^)

>>34623618
It's a destroyer if it's called one and used like one.

>>34623585

for the past 10 years there has bee na stigma in world navies about calling things "Cruiser" its seen as too "aggressive", and people start thinking about the old outdated post-world war II cruisers

>>34623585

There is no real criteria any more. The entire concept of classes of ships has gone so far off the level of consistency it used to have that there are several ships called different things by different nations and everyone classifies things in unique ways.

It's better to just consider things as "major escorts" now and talk about their role, rather than their type.

File: 4904102975_01cc7aee15_o.jpg (182KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1600x1200px

>>34623585
>frigate

>>34623679
>cruiser sounds too aggressive
>not destroyer, literally "that which destroys"

>>34623585
Because Congress authorized the construction of a destroyer, not a cruiser, because cruisers are expensive while destroyers are cheap.

Never mind that the Zumwalt ended costing more than any other non-carrier ship in history.

>>34623595

The Izumo-class actually does fit the role of an ASW destroyer quite well, though.

>>34623745
>>34623585

The real reason is because the Zumwalt was supposed to be a warm-up for an even larger class of ship which would have been classified as cruisers.

>>34624103
It still might, CG-(x) has yet to be announced.

>>34624163

Well, there does need to be a Tico replacement eventually, it just probably won't be thing that they originally had planned, which was a CGN on par with a Kirov-class in terms of displacement. I don't see that being a possibility in today's budget environment.

>>34623618
There is no 'displacement and armament' criteria that distinguishes destroyers from cruisers. Ticonderoga's are destroyers that were renamed cruisers to sate the autism of congress.

If something like a San Antonio based BMD ship actually gets built, then you could call it a cruiser (or even a battlecruiser) due to the substantial difference in displacement and armament compared to current ships.

>>34623641
since there is only 4 of them will be ever built.
their role will be much like battleships.

>>34624236
fuck are you smoking ?

70 years ago a ship like it would have been classified as a light cruiser.

The only reason it's called a Destroyer is because of political reasons.

>>34624284
no it would not, fuck do you even how how ww2 classification worked ?

>>34624298

I don't see how he's wrong. It's got 6-inch guns and it is a roughly the same displacement range that a large cruiser would fall into.

>>34624103
The CG(X) concept based off the Zumwalt died when the class was cut to 3.

>>34624349
So you don't actually know how WW2 era ship classification worked.

>>34623722
God that old as fuck 76mm. They should upgrade it.

File: hombre-pensativo.png (61KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x400px

>>34624445

>You're wrong for reasons I won't elaborate on.

Okay then.

>>34624218
The replacement will end up being a scaled up Burke with an extra 32 VLS cells, and one of the Zumwalt's guns or a railgun.

>>34624666

That's basically it needs to be.

>>34624251
I think he's drawing parralels with the Iowa class.

-expensive
-only 4 made
-ultimately deemed too important to actually use in a fight

The only problem being the Iowas were actually very useful at times and looked cool af doing it. Meanwhile these are bad and should feel bad.

File: ACX CRYSTAL.jpg (54KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x400px

*blocks your destroyer*

>>34623585

>balsa

>>34624163

>CG-(x) has yet to be announced.
Anon...

>>34624700
>-ultimately deemed too important to actually use in a fight

What does this even mean? I've seen this term parroted for years and I've never seen any real validity to it. The Iowas were used in fights, even post refit when the USS Iowa was deployed to the Gulf, it was placed in harms way and even took damage.

>>34624646
>WW2 ship classification specifically stated
>guise why wont you elaborate on why I am wrong?!?

Okay then.

>>34624737
>I don't know what I am talking about

>>34624284
And 140 years ago a destroyer 70 years ago would had been classified as a battleship.

>>34624666
The Tico's are not going away for a long time and will not have a direct replacement.

>>34623591
Destroyers destroy and cruisers cruise.
Do you see that ship destroying something? neither do I.

>>34624232

In WW2, there was a pretty clear line between destroyers and cruisers because destroyers always lacked armor whereas cruisers always had at least some armor. Now that basically all naval vessels have little-to-no armor, it is much harder to make a clear distinction.

>>34624870
Yes, you are baiting now. Have an obligatory (you).

File: 080.jpg (34KB, 550x633px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 550x633px

>>34624901

>>34624887
What about frigates and corvettes, anon?

>>34624913
>Corvette: small warship designed for convoy escort duty.

That ship is not that small and is alone in the water.

I will concede that it could be a frigate as well.

File: 7a3d130164305a4ce490c18374ea864c--greek-warrior-classical-period.jpg (139KB, 736x905px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 736x905px

>>34624733
This puts fear in the heart of any US Navy Capt.

>>34624719
Guess we should build some Nevada's.

>>34623585
Wasn't there a law passed in the Reagan era that required all future cruisers to be nuclear powered? My understanding was that to avoid having to make more nuclear ships they just stopped using the word cruiser.

>>34623595
>AC
>AC
>ayyyyy ceeeee
fuck summer

>>34624913
Frigates are frigid and corvettes are corvids. Do not trust corvettes, they are not real ships.

>>34625684
CAW CAW CAW

>>34625453

That law was passed in 1974, and it applied to any combat vessel with displacement exceeding 8000 tons. Destroyers were no exempt from this, and this law is the reason why the Spruance-class destroyers were designed to be pretty much exactly 8000 tons. The law didn't last very long because it constrained the design of new warships too much. Think about it. Burkes tend to be 9000+ ton ships these days. If the law were still in effect, every Burke would need nuclear propulsion incorporated into the design.

>>34625684
Is a frigette to be trusted?

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/22/the-argument-for-a-small-but-lethal-ship-concept-frigette

>>34625147
Best bb is nv

>>34625684
corvettes are for chasing down small boats and picket not to fight ship to ship.

>>34623595

Izumo is easily the most aesthetic flattop ship class desu.

File: 150806073249-uss-roosevelt-gulf-super-169.jpg (168KB, 1100x619px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1100x619px

>>34623633
>Helicopter destroyer, anon

Sooooooooooo, is this a plane destroyer?

>>34627411
If congress only allows you to buy destroyers it is.

File: 1200px-HMS_Invincible_%28R05%29_Dragon_Hammer_90.jpg (197KB, 1200x804px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1200x804px

>>34627411
No, but this is a cruiser. Specifically, a through deck command cruiser.

>>34623696
/thread
Cruisers were originally frigates fitted out for long range operations "cruising" apart from main battle-fleets.

Destroyers were originally torpedo boat destroyers. Now torpedo boats are subs and the cat and mouse game continues.

Frigates were ocean going ships with 2 gun decks. Would get wrecked by men-of-war if they were caught, but that was unlikely as they were far better sailers. Also MUCH cheaper to build and operate. The USN was originally all heavy frigates.

Corvettes were a French invention, a littoral ship ranking between sloops/brigs and frigates.
Good for customs work, patrolling coastlines, and picket ships.

>>34623641
But it isn't. By design, it can't form part of a standardized battlegroup because there are only three ships, while fitting it into one would nullify the point of making it a stealth vessel in the first place.

>>34628436
Having a lesser risk of getting an ASM up the arse is not a point worth anything whatsoever once you're in a carrier group? I didn't think the destroyer was there as pure ablative for the carrier, but I guess I was wrong.

>>34623725
Destroyer is a shortening of their original name of torpedo boat destroyer. They still hunt torpedo boats only now the torpedo boats are underwater. They're defensive ships.

Cruisers cruised around picking on merchant ships/undefended ports, they're aggressive ships.