A modern cruiser?

[Scott Kenny]

The question is what weapons require a Kirov size ship?
Missiles are the obvious reply. Bigger missiles than those carried in current US ships. Presumably with more range and bigger payloads?
Alternatively the ships might carry a new design of heavy gun or an aviation component of F35Bs, UAVs or helicopters.

MGM-140 ATACMS is a 24" diameter rocket, and seems to be the minimum diameter possible booster for a hypersonic.
The PrSM is not quite as large, because MLRS/HIMARS can hold 2 per launch pod. Possibly 18" diameter at most.

Allegedly, you can fit an ATACMS into a VLS tube that will hold a Tomahawk, the actual inside diameter of the launch tube is something like 25-26", just takes some new padding and a flat ribbon connector cable instead of the usual round umbilical. Got a copy of the Lockheed study from this very forum!

But this means that the hypersonics are looking at a minimum 26" diameter and at least as long as a Strike VLS tube given that none are said to be able to fit into the Mk41 VLS.

 

[uk 75]

Hypersonic missiles would be the modern equivalents of Talos and Shaddock in driving the need for large surface platforms?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hypersonic missiles would be the modern equivalents of Talos and Shaddock in driving the need for large surface platforms?

I believe so, yes,

 

[apparition13]

Also need to be pointed out the size of late and post war cruisers.

AKA the 15,000 ton Worcester class and 20,000 ton Des Moines class.

At 15,000 ton the Long Beach was actually very small for what one will expect a cruiser made nearly 15 years after those two.

Even the RN light cruiser Designs were pushing upwards of 15k plus.

Ship sizes historically tend to grow, and its been closer to a century then not to when WW2 cruisers were made.

By all rights a modern Cruiser be pushing over 20k much like the soviet Kirovs are.

Agreed, the "no more than 10k tons" metric is a hangover from the Washington and London Naval treaties.

The 10kt treaty cruisers were up to 14kt full load. Post treaty Baltimores were 17kt. 10kt was the empty weight. Only Zumwalts and type 055s are in that size and displacement range among modern surface combatants. Even destroyers as big as Sejong and Maya have displacements at full load comparable to treaty cruisers at standard displacement.

I think both the Supply and San Antonio hulls would be the way to go. They have plenty of space and displacement, space for more engines (or nuclear power if you want to go that way) to get them up to 30 knots. Supply has a lot more displacement to play from, but the LPDs are being constructed, and more hull would bring the cost down.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also need to be pointed out the size of late and post war cruisers.

AKA the 15,000 ton Worcester class and 20,000 ton Des Moines class.

At 15,000 ton the Long Beach was actually very small for what one will expect a cruiser made nearly 15 years after those two.

Even the RN light cruiser Designs were pushing upwards of 15k plus.

Ship sizes historically tend to grow, and its been closer to a century then not to when WW2 cruisers were made.

By all rights a modern Cruiser be pushing over 20k much like the soviet Kirovs are.

Agreed, the "no more than 10k tons" metric is a hangover from the Washington and London Naval treaties.

The 10kt treaty cruisers were up to 14kt full load. Post treaty Baltimores were 17kt. 10kt was the empty weight. Only Zumwalts and type 055s are in that size and displacement range among modern surface combatants. Even destroyers as big as Sejong and Maya have displacements at full load comparable to treaty cruisers at standard displacement.

Yes, and it's the idea that a "cruiser" is around 10k tons that comes from the Treaties. As is the idea that anything over 10k tons is bad.

Destroyers basically doubled in displacement from 1918 to 1936, from 1800 to 3600tons, because of all the extra stuff that kept getting added.

Cruisers went from 10k ish (13-14k full load) to 17k (21k full load) . That's Wichita class to Des Moines class. The "Des Memes" had fully automatic guns that were quite a bit heavier than the older ships, something like 150tons per gun additional.

I think both the Supply and San Antonio hulls would be the way to go. They have plenty of space and displacement, space for more engines (or nuclear power if you want to go that way) to get them up to 30 knots. Supply has a lot more displacement to play from, but the LPDs are being constructed, and more hull would bring the cost down.

Strongly disagree, they don't have quite the right hull shape for cruising. Their hull shapes and internal layouts are compromised by large internal cargo compartments.

 

[Firefinder]

The question is what weapons require a Kirov size ship?
Missiles are the obvious reply. Bigger missiles than those carried in current US ships. Presumably with more range and bigger payloads?
Alternatively the ships might carry a new design of heavy gun or an aviation component of F35Bs, UAVs or helicopters.

MGM-140 ATACMS is a 24" diameter rocket, and seems to be the minimum diameter possible booster for a hypersonic.
The PrSM is not quite as large, because MLRS/HIMARS can hold 2 per launch pod. Possibly 18" diameter at most.

Allegedly, you can fit an ATACMS into a VLS tube that will hold a Tomahawk, the actual inside diameter of the launch tube is something like 25-26", just takes some new padding and a flat ribbon connector cable instead of the usual round umbilical. Got a copy of the Lockheed study from this very forum!

But this means that the hypersonics are looking at a minimum 26" diameter and at least as long as a Strike VLS tube given that none are said to be able to fit into the Mk41 VLS.

Honestly it be easier to go with Extra large size tubes ALA like the VPM.

And design it so it easy to fit like 6 to 8 Mk41 Standard size missiles cells in it. Likely done by a sleeve that fits in to hold and hook up the cells like normal.

So it be easily switch to a...

*Check notes*

Trident size missile.

By just pulling the Sleeve like its an empty full size cell and replace it with the large missile.

Or how ever big the new hypersonic missile, the Dark Eagle, that the Zumwalts be getting.

Hell just need to stretch the Zumwalt refit a bit or better optimize the Hypersonic tubes to fit more and that will make a good CG.

Another thing that be good to add be a radar with a face double the size of the Spy1/6 for Ballistic Missile Defense work. Which the bigger tubes will help with.

Other then that, theres not much a modern cruiser hull can do that a Destroyer like the Burke or Zumwalts cant.

 

[apparition13]

The point I was making is anyone who thinks cruisers are 10k and anything over that is bad doesn't know is poorly informed because the compliant treaty cruisers were (at full load) well above that. The non-compliant and post treaty cruisers were well above even the treaty cruisers. And the very top end, the Alaska class, were 35000.

And no, the San Antonio and Supply hull forms aren't ideal, but internal layouts are flexible. Internal layouts can be changed for different missions. Witness the C3 cargo ship of WW2, which were also escort carriers, tenders, repair ships, and attack transports.

 

[Dilandu]

That was reusing a contact number that had previously been an F-14, and the crew taking their cues from the captain and being very aggressive and looking for a fight.

That's the problem with humans on battlefield: they have emotions, which mess up their actions. Robots did not got angry, or frightened, or venegful. Robot could allow itself to continue to track dubious target beyond the safety just to make sure it would be correctly identified.

 

[Dilandu]

The question is what weapons require a Kirov size ship?

Well, Kirov became so large because it was essentially a mix of two ships on single hull. The initial project assumed two moderately-sized nuclear powered vessels - an ASW ship and a missile cruiser - to work together in ocean. The ASW ship would hunt NATO boomers, and cruiser would protect it against NATO warships. But then admirals decided that ASW ship must also carry anti-ship missiles, so the need for dedicated missile cruiser disappeared, and the ASW ship became bigger. And then admirals started to mess with project more and more: they wanted to install a multi-channel S-300F SAM (which was the adaptation of land-based missile, and thus very bulky), then they wanted to use a new P-700 "Granit" ASM (which was designed for submarines, and required specific under-deck launchers filled with water), then they wanted auxilary oil-feed boilers (in case both reactors fail), and then they decided that such big and costly ship needed more protection, so the 4-inch armor boxes were installed...

 

[Firefinder]

That was reusing a contact number that had previously been an F-14, and the crew taking their cues from the captain and being very aggressive and looking for a fight.

That's the problem with humans on battlefield: they have emotions, which mess up their actions. Robots did not got angry, or frightened, or venegful. Robot could allow itself to continue to track dubious target beyond the safety just to make sure it would be correctly identified.

That or get confused an start trying to murder everything cause a 1 or 0 gets flipped.

Or get killed when the enemy keeps saying or doing the right thing long enough to dump a weapon into it.

Or gets hacked and deliver itself into a enemy port as a gift rap present.

Or suffer a breakdown and needs to be pulled.

Or...

You get tge point.

We are still FAR FAR way from having a fully automous anything yet.

 

[SSgtC]

That was reusing a contact number that had previously been an F-14, and the crew taking their cues from the captain and being very aggressive and looking for a fight.

That's the problem with humans on battlefield: they have emotions, which mess up their actions. Robots did not got angry, or frightened, or venegful. Robot could allow itself to continue to track dubious target beyond the safety just to make sure it would be correctly identified.

That or get confused an start trying to murder everything cause a 1 or 0 gets flipped.

Or get killed when the enemy keeps saying or doing the right thing long enough to dump a weapon into it.

Or gets hacked and deliver itself into a enemy port as a gift rap present.

Or suffer a breakdown and needs to be pulled.

Or...

You get tge point.

We are still FAR FAR way from having a fully automous anything yet.

Just as an example of this: the US Military recently ran a series of exercises using AI. With a human controller that could override the AI. Guess what happened when the AI decided its human controller was stopping it from fulfilling its mission (by refusing to let the AI kill everything it wanted to)? The AI ordered a Hellfire strike on the controller. So yeah, we're not putting autonomous weapons systems into the field any time soon

 

[publiusr]

There was no CGN-1.
There was CAG-1 Boston... the only nuclear-powered cruisers were CGN-9 Long Beach, CGN-25 Bainbridge, and CGN-35 Truxton.

Yep mistake. I blame NyQuil.

I blame my double shifts....been up 36 hours now...

 

[CV12Hornet]

Just as an example of this: the US Military recently ran a series of exercises using AI. With a human controller that could override the AI. Guess what happened when the AI decided its human controller was stopping it from fulfilling its mission (by refusing to let the AI kill everything it wanted to)? The AI ordered a Hellfire strike on the controller. So yeah, we're not putting autonomous weapons systems into the field any time soon

Wasn't that fake news?

Yeah, the guy walked it back: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-...ng-its-operator-in-military-simulation-2023-6

 

[SSgtC]

Just as an example of this: the US Military recently ran a series of exercises using AI. With a human controller that could override the AI. Guess what happened when the AI decided its human controller was stopping it from fulfilling its mission (by refusing to let the AI kill everything it wanted to)? The AI ordered a Hellfire strike on the controller. So yeah, we're not putting autonomous weapons systems into the field any time soon

Wasn't that fake news?

Yeah, the guy walked it back: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-...ng-its-operator-in-military-simulation-2023-6

Ah, I hadn't heard that. I've been extremely busy at work and haven't really been keeping up with news lately. Thanks for the correction

 

[Dilandu]

Just as an example of this: the US Military recently ran a series of exercises using AI. With a human controller that could override the AI. Guess what happened when the AI decided its human controller was stopping it from fulfilling its mission (by refusing to let the AI kill everything it wanted to)? The AI ordered a Hellfire strike on the controller. So yeah, we're not putting autonomous weapons systems into the field any time soon

Yeah, terrible. One small problem: nothing like this happened. It was a purely human BRAINSTORM, about "if I was AI what would I do?".

 

[Dilandu]

Yeah, the guy walked it back:

Well, he achieved his goal: general population became scared about the "killer AI on the loose", and USAF fighter jocks would not face replacement by far cheaper robots for a while.

 

[Firefinder]

Yeah, the guy walked it back:

Well, he achieved his goal: general population became scared about the "killer AI on the loose", and USAF fighter jocks would not face replacement by far cheaper robots for a while.

Not that that would have been happening anytime soon anyways.

So call robots in multiple uses from planes to just simple radar terrian following have shown to make multiple simple mistakes that humans dont.

My personal favorite is when the Raytheon tech said that our radars didnt need to be programmed with manual terrian following data for the site or need to load up DTED, which is the terrian maps for the radar AO.

That the program will automatically figure out the terrian hieghts of the location and modified the radar search so it will not be block.

And put simply it failed.

It did not tract a single round from the guns, which as this was a counterbattery radar?

Was its entire job.

After several days of embarrassments, an operators, a private of 6 weeks OUT OF AIT, went up and did all the usual stuff and track all the rest of the rounds fired. And that wasnt even a edge locotation case like in a middle of a box valley nor was EWAR in play.

No this was in Korea on the damn DMZ, last year at that.

Until an AI thought train looks like something thats not a Flow Chart and can deal with issues that we as human take for simple?

Let alone dealing with EWAR.

It no way near ready for the fuck show of War.

The EWAR bit a big one, cause you can do alot with just radar and thermals to mess with gear. The Air Force found that one after they upgrade their training targets to deal with the F35, apperantly that started a train deal for the EWAR guys as well.

I have serouis doubts that AI be able to deal with that within the next 30 years.

 

[Dilandu]

Not that that would have been happening anytime soon anyways.

The thing is, that air-to-air combat is likely the easiest to switch on automatic. Essentially already fighters obtain target through complex system of computer-controlled sensors, and engage target with missiles aimed and controlled by automatic fire control system. Pilot is essentially an intermediate step between automatic. Very costly and quite disabilitating intermediate step.

 

[SSgtC]

Just as an example of this: the US Military recently ran a series of exercises using AI. With a human controller that could override the AI. Guess what happened when the AI decided its human controller was stopping it from fulfilling its mission (by refusing to let the AI kill everything it wanted to)? The AI ordered a Hellfire strike on the controller. So yeah, we're not putting autonomous weapons systems into the field any time soon

Yeah, terrible. One small problem: nothing like this happened. It was a purely human BRAINSTORM, about "if I was AI what would I do?".

Yeah, you probably should have scrolled down a little further before jumping to a "gotcha" moment. I hadn't heard that the claim had been walked back (surprise, surprise, the media didn't cover the retraction nearly as much as they did the initial story). @CV12Hornet already pointed this out to me and I had thanked him for the correction. You're comment just makes it look like you're trying to dogpile and makes you look petty

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not that that would have been happening anytime soon anyways.

The thing is, that air-to-air combat is likely the easiest to switch on automatic. Essentially already fighters obtain target through complex system of computer-controlled sensors, and engage target with missiles aimed and controlled by automatic fire control system. Pilot is essentially an intermediate step between automatic. Very costly and quite disabilitating intermediate step.

Yes, it is.

People still want a live person to pull the trigger. And right now, it's really hard for a pilot to pay attention to what their drone Loyal Wingman has locked up while they're in a dogfight. It may be something that a better User Interface can deal with, but I'm not sure about that detail.

 

[Dilandu]

I hadn't heard that the claim had been walked back (surprise, surprise, the media didn't cover the retraction nearly as much as they did the initial story

All you need is logic, to note that something is very fishy. How the hell AI could figure out the existence of operator? AI have zero understanding of communications (it's not it purpose), it could not make a logical connection between the friendly object labeled as "operator" and commands, that appeared in the AI input circuits. Concluding that operator and commands are somehow linked, is pretty much impossible for AI without a lot of additional data - data, that have no reasons to be provided to AI in the described "testing" at all. That's what make me suspicious when I first read about "testing" even before retraction was issued.

 

[publiusr]

The only limitation the strength of the airframe. How many g’s it could survive

 

[johnpjones1775]

A 21st century cruiser would look like whatever the USN settles on for its new DDG(X)