Is this the most majestic surface combatant of the modern era? I love flat tops but there's just something about that cruiser hull cutting through the waves that speaks to me like nothing else.
>>65422738CVN with only 2 escorts, in a time pf open conflict? Is there at least an LA or Virginia class lurking arpund them?
>>65426605Yeah.
>>65422738Shoup da woop
>>65426605CSGs always have a sub escort.
>>65422738>cruiser hullLiterally a Spruance. We haven't built an actual cruiser since the Long Bitch.
>>65426790The ticos are similar in displacement to treaty era cruisers though, so whateva
>>65426817>treaty eraMeaningless.
>>65426822Indianapolis means something to me :(
>>65426817>displacing as much as a Treaty-era cruiserWow.
>>65426842Did they not think to make the bow units modular in case the guns didn't work? They cannot just be removed and replaced with some VLS cells and a 5"?
>>65426884>in case the guns didn't work? The guns work, in as much as any gun without ammo to fire can be said to "work". >They cannot just be removed and replaced with some VLS cellsThat is exactly what's happening.
yes i love the swept hull design of the Arleigh Burkes but there is nothing like the Tico cruisers, the DDG is a bit wider and squat, the CG comes with more VLS tubes, two radar deck houses, and a full watch floor for air and missile defense, cruisers control the air and missile defense in the strike groupt. qualified OOD on both Arleigh Burke Flight IIA and Tico class CG
>>65426899F
>>65426790What defines a cruiser hull?
>>65426824it means nothing to me
>>65426605there are probably 5 US subs in the area everyone knows about and 11 they do not, with more than a couple tasked with simply being parked in total silence just recording passively.
>>65426884Obviously they made sure the guns worked before they put them on the ship, what kind of retardation is this?
>>65426961It's complicated, and made even more so because the USN couldn't name things "corvettes" or "frigates" for a long time, but used absurd variations of "destroyer"; DE(G), DD(G), DL(G/N), etc. Everything became a destroyer, even when it was the size of a light cruiser. Then came the "cruiser gap", because Soviet ships of the same size were being called cruisers, so the Ticos got reclassified from DDG to CG.
>>65432771>>65426961>>65426790A reminder that ship classifications are completely arbitrary and the type of ships the classic classifications were attached to have not been built for a good half century.
>>65426790USS Long Beach, my beloved <3
>>65432782Why is it so hard for them to just commit to >Cruiser: A large-ish general purpose ship designed with anti-surface operations in mind>Destroyer: A medium-ish ship that primarily serves in a fleet defence role and is thus primarily rigged for anti-air and anti-submarine work
>>65433475Because modern destroyers are for surface warfare and modern cruisers are for theater BMD.
>>65432262So why don't they work?
>>65426765>CSGs always have a sub escort.In the strait of malacca? I think not.
>>65426884>Did they not think to make the bow units modular in case the guns didn't work? They cannot just be removed and replaced with some VLS cells and a 5"?The guns could have worked if they were designed differently but they were not really supposed to work, they were a grifting project. Western artillery is pretty much dead due to NATO standardization killing any kind of competitiveness, if it isnt NATO standard, no one is going to buy it, even if it has superior performance. F.ex the Haubits 77A had a superior rate of fire combared to the NATO compliant Haubits 77B.
>>65429353>there are probably 5 US subs in the area everyone knows about and 11 they do not, with more than a couple tasked with simply being parked in total silence just recording passively.That would be quite impressive considering that out of 50 USN SSNs, about 20 are redlined in port waiting for repairs leaving only 30 available.
>>65432771A cruiser has an XL sized extra command room and also a number of extra suites, all for an admiral and his staff. A DD does not.
>>65434477What makes you think they don't?
>>65432782Cruisers still have a proportionally bigger crew than destroyers so they can you know, cruise. It's why the US has held onto them and has been trying fruitlessly to make more in a climate where a ship with a lot of sailors in it is seen as inefficient versus trying to make everything sit around the ~110 man range. If the recruiters had their way, we'd be trying to run carriers with just a hundred people, too.
>>65436674Yes, they would either have their sub detour through a deeper section of water ahead of time, or more likely in this scenario, have a 2nd SSN on the other side of strait already waiting for the CSG, and the first SSN simply goes back into the pacific SSN patrols instead of continuing as the CSG escort.
>>65426961Able to go on solitary operations, long range, full length deck over damage control deck.
>>65422738>cruiser hull>based on spruance class hullokay dingus
>>65426605lol what’s Iran gonna do about it?
>>65443485Post more warthunder videos of them sinking a Soviet carrier and claiming that they've sunk it while posting 4-5 year old videos of a ship having a toilet issue and claiming that the carrier is suffering from toilet problems.
