When is a warship a cruiser?

[Scott Kenny]

• A destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller powerful short-range attackers.
  • Where it gets muddy is that the role of destroyers and the role of the old torpedo boats (the thing that destroyers were built to destroy) were conflated into the destroyer role, so they are built for escort duties but also had torpedo tubes (or now SSM) with an offensive role

What happened was that Destroyers had enough speed to catch a torpedo boat, or at least get between a torpedo boat and the target.

So they were more or less as fast as the old MTBs, which meant that you could give them torpedoes and not build MTBs. At least until they invented the planing hull, at which point the MTBs could be a lot faster than almost anything on the water.

=====
For the USN, there are apparently some significant differences in hull shape between a cruiser and a destroyer.

The Long Beach was the last ship designed as a cruiser hull in the US Navy, all later cruisers were either outright destroyer hulls (Ticos) or modified destroyer hulls (CGNs were significantly stretched over their conventional propulsion cousins).
Long Beach was 721ft long and 71ft abeam (10.15 L:B ratio), while USS California built as a DL/"Frigate" was 596ft long and 60ft abeam (9.93 L:B). In comparison, the Burkes are 506ft long and 66ft abeam (7.67 L:B). Providence/Cleveland class CLs were 608ft long and 64ft abeam (9.5 L:B), Baltimore class CAs were 673ft long by 72ft abeam (9.35 L:B), and the penultimate Des Moines class CAs were 716.5ft long and 76.5ft abeam (9.73 L:B)

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

What happened was that Destroyers had enough speed to catch a torpedo boat, or at least get between a torpedo boat and the target.

So they were more or less as fast as the old MTBs, which meant that you could give them torpedoes and not build MTBs. At least until they invented the planing hull, at which point the MTBs could be a lot faster than almost anything on the water.

The term MTB refers to the later planing-hulled craft.

The earlier steam-powered torpedo boats, whilst similar in size to MTBs when they were first built in the 1870s evolved into steam-powered steel-hulled ships which could displace well into the hundreds of tons essentially becoming small destroyers.

MTBs in comparison usually displaced in the tens of tons, only crossed the 100-ton mark towards the end of the Second World War and Post War.

MTBs tended to have high sprint speeds in calm waters, but they tended to be slow in rough weather, slower in many cases than destroyers (or fast light cruisers like the Capitani Romani class). British MTBs also suffered in the early war due to lack of suitable engines.

For the USN, there are apparently some significant differences in hull shape between a cruiser and a destroyer.

The Long Beach was the last ship designed as a cruiser hull in the US Navy, all later cruisers were either outright destroyer hulls (Ticos) or modified destroyer hulls (CGNs were significantly stretched over their conventional propulsion cousins).
Long Beach was 721ft long and 71ft abeam (10.15 L:B ratio), while USS California built as a DL/"Frigate" was 596ft long and 60ft abeam (9.93 L:B). In comparison, the Burkes are 506ft long and 66ft abeam (7.67 L:B). Providence/Cleveland class CLs were 608ft long and 64ft abeam (9.5 L:B), Baltimore class CAs were 673ft long by 72ft abeam (9.35 L:B), and the penultimate Des Moines class CAs were 716.5ft long and 76.5ft abeam (9.73 L:B)

Worth pointing out that the Burkes introduced a new shorter and beamier hullform inspired by Soviet designs because many US Navy Officers believed they had better seakeeping qualities than the longer hulls of the Spruances.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What happened was that Destroyers had enough speed to catch a torpedo boat, or at least get between a torpedo boat and the target.

So they were more or less as fast as the old MTBs, which meant that you could give them torpedoes and not build MTBs. At least until they invented the planing hull, at which point the MTBs could be a lot faster than almost anything on the water.

The term MTB refers to the later planing-hulled craft.

The earlier steam-powered torpedo boats, whilst similar in size to MTBs when they were first built in the 1870s evolved into steam-powered steel-hulled ships which could displace well into the hundreds of tons essentially becoming small destroyers.

MTBs in comparison usually displaced in the tens of tons, only crossed the 100-ton mark towards the end of the Second World War and Post War.

MTBs tended to have high sprint speeds in calm waters, but they tended to be slow in rough weather, slower in many cases than destroyers (or fast light cruisers like the Capitani Romani class). British MTBs also suffered in the early war due to lack of suitable engines.

Granted on the use of MTB.

Older, steam powered torpedo boats converged into Torpedo Boat Destroyers.

For the USN, there are apparently some significant differences in hull shape between a cruiser and a destroyer.

The Long Beach was the last ship designed as a cruiser hull in the US Navy, all later cruisers were either outright destroyer hulls (Ticos) or modified destroyer hulls (CGNs were significantly stretched over their conventional propulsion cousins).
Long Beach was 721ft long and 71ft abeam (10.15 L:B ratio), while USS California built as a DL/"Frigate" was 596ft long and 60ft abeam (9.93 L:B). In comparison, the Burkes are 506ft long and 66ft abeam (7.67 L:B). Providence/Cleveland class CLs were 608ft long and 64ft abeam (9.5 L:B), Baltimore class CAs were 673ft long by 72ft abeam (9.35 L:B), and the penultimate Des Moines class CAs were 716.5ft long and 76.5ft abeam (9.73 L:B)

Worth pointing out that the Burkes introduced a new shooter and beamier hullform inspired by Soviet designs because many US Navy Officers believed they had better seakeeping qualities than the longer hulls of the Spruances.

I think they're right, but I've seen Burkes in some ugly, ugly seas taking waves over the bow and I think all the way up the superstructure...

 

[Archibald]

+10 000 tons sounds like an interesting lower bound, even today. 12 000 tons too. Plus very heavy armement: lots of guns and missiles and VLS.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Granted on the use of MTB.

Older, steam powered torpedo boats converged into Torpedo Boat Destroyers.

Not quite (at least until after the Second World War when they seem to have disappeared entirely as a type).

Steam-powered Steel-hulled torpedo boats continued to exist as a distinct type, although that may have been because under the restrictions of 1930 London Treaty they could be built in unlimited numbers provided they displaced less than 600 tons, although larger ships of this type were built after the collapse of the Treaty system.

Ships that fall under this category include the the French La Melpomène and Le Fier classes, Italian Spica and Ariete classes, Japanese Chidori and Ōtori classes and the German Type 23, 24, 35, 37 and 39 classes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

+10 000 tons sounds like an interesting lower bound, even today. 12 000 tons too. Plus very heavy armement: lots of guns and missiles and VLS.

I mean, the Burkes are right at that size already, as are the JMSDF Kongo, Atago, and Maya classes. And so are the Ticos.

It's just that stealth features and better habitability conditions make for a much larger ship. Compare the Zumwalt class (610ft loa and 80.7ft abeam) to the Burkes (509.5ft loa and 66ft abeam). And IIRC the CG21 was looking at a 20-25k sized ship, at least partially due to being nuclear powered.

 

[Yellow Palace]

For the USN, there are apparently some significant differences in hull shape between a cruiser and a destroyer.

The difference is less in the hull lines, and more in the scantlings and subdivision.

The high L/B of the cruisers you've cited is more indicative of the time - the FORREST SHERMAN class is 9.29, the MITSCHER class is 10.32, the GEARING class is 9.55. For that matter, the SPRUANCE class has an L/B of 10.23.

The demands of modern ship design don't require extremely slender hulls for high speed - hard to outrun a 600 knot bomber or a 1500 knot missile - but do require lots of stability for radars and missile launchers, so comparatively beamy hulls are preferred.

The SPRUANCE class was (in the USN at least) the last gasp of 'traditional' lines design. Given the issues with stability margins on the TICONDEROGA class, it's tempting to imagine a derivative with more BURKE-like proportions. At a guess, that'd come out at 497ft Loa and just under 63 ft beam, with more stability and likely more usable internal volume, but reduced centreline length and worse high speed performance.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For the USN, there are apparently some significant differences in hull shape between a cruiser and a destroyer.

The difference is less in the hull lines, and more in the scantlings and subdivision.

The high L/B of the cruisers you've cited is more indicative of the time - the FORREST SHERMAN class is 9.29, the MITSCHER class is 10.32, the GEARING class is 9.55. For that matter, the SPRUANCE class has an L/B of 10.23.

The demands of modern ship design don't require extremely slender hulls for high speed - hard to outrun a 600 knot bomber or a 1500 knot missile - but do require lots of stability for radars and missile launchers, so comparatively beamy hulls are preferred.

The SPRUANCE class was (in the USN at least) the last gasp of 'traditional' lines design. Given the issues with stability margins on the TICONDEROGA class, it's tempting to imagine a derivative with more BURKE-like proportions. At a guess, that'd come out at 497ft Loa and just under 63 ft beam, with more stability and likely more usable internal volume, but reduced centreline length and worse high speed performance.

Ah, gotcha! Thanks!

How does a trimaran fit in that in terms of stability? I mean, the Independence class has a huge flight deck as well as a very long and slender main hull, and I could see a ship with the tumblehome of the Zumwalts with the back half of an Indy class on it. Possibly with a taller superstructure due to radar needs, but that's a different discussion. Or I could see the Indy with a widened Burke superstructure (assuming that the radars like that)

 

[johnpjones1775]

It seems to me that it is possible to determine the classification if we consider not a separate type of ship, but the entire fleet at once.
The battleship after the Second World War was built only by the USSR, so we do not consider it.
A cruiser is the largest universal ship that a country can build.
The brig is the smallest of the ships, a ship of the coastal zone with a displacement of about 1000 tons.
The other types are located between

The USSR never built a battleship post WWII…

 

[johnpjones1775]

• A destroyer is a fast, maneuverable long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller powerful short-range attackers.
  • Where it gets muddy is that the role of destroyers and the role of the old torpedo boats (the thing that destroyers were built to destroy) were conflated into the destroyer role, so they are built for escort duties but also had torpedo tubes (or now SSM) with an offensive role

What happened was that Destroyers had enough speed to catch a torpedo boat, or at least get between a torpedo boat and the target.

So they were more or less as fast as the old MTBs, which meant that you could give them torpedoes and not build MTBs. At least until they invented the planing hull, at which point the MTBs could be a lot faster than almost anything on the water.

=====
For the USN, there are apparently some significant differences in hull shape between a cruiser and a destroyer.

The Long Beach was the last ship designed as a cruiser hull in the US Navy, all later cruisers were either outright destroyer hulls (Ticos) or modified destroyer hulls (CGNs were significantly stretched over their conventional propulsion cousins).
Long Beach was 721ft long and 71ft abeam (10.15 L:B ratio), while USS California built as a DL/"Frigate" was 596ft long and 60ft abeam (9.93 L:B). In comparison, the Burkes are 506ft long and 66ft abeam (7.67 L:B). Providence/Cleveland class CLs were 608ft long and 64ft abeam (9.5 L:B), Baltimore class CAs were 673ft long by 72ft abeam (9.35 L:B), and the penultimate Des Moines class CAs were 716.5ft long and 76.5ft abeam (9.73 L:B)

Ticos are cruisers
Spruances we’re destroyers.

Their hulls are nearly identical

 

[johnpjones1775]

For me personally if they could get HII’s BMD concept up to 30kts, drop some VLS for MK110 P/S/A, and that’s what I’d call a modern cruiser.

LPD Based Ballistic Missile Defense Ship – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

missiledefenseadvocacy.org

 

[paralay]

The USSR never built a battleship post WWII…

Cruiser on the right, battleship on the left

 

[Yellow Palace]

The difference is less in the hull lines, and more in the scantlings and subdivision.

The high L/B of the cruisers you've cited is more indicative of the time - the FORREST SHERMAN class is 9.29, the MITSCHER class is 10.32, the GEARING class is 9.55. For that matter, the SPRUANCE class has an L/B of 10.23.

The demands of modern ship design don't require extremely slender hulls for high speed - hard to outrun a 600 knot bomber or a 1500 knot missile - but do require lots of stability for radars and missile launchers, so comparatively beamy hulls are preferred.

The SPRUANCE class was (in the USN at least) the last gasp of 'traditional' lines design. Given the issues with stability margins on the TICONDEROGA class, it's tempting to imagine a derivative with more BURKE-like proportions. At a guess, that'd come out at 497ft Loa and just under 63 ft beam, with more stability and likely more usable internal volume, but reduced centreline length and worse high speed performance.

Ah, gotcha! Thanks!

How does a trimaran fit in that in terms of stability? I mean, the Independence class has a huge flight deck as well as a very long and slender main hull, and I could see a ship with the tumblehome of the Zumwalts with the back half of an Indy class on it. Possibly with a taller superstructure due to radar needs, but that's a different discussion. Or I could see the Indy with a widened Burke superstructure (assuming that the radars like that)

Trimarans have excellent initial stability, to the point that they're incredibly stiff and can have very high roll acceleration. They also have very limited internal volume, by virtue of the hulls being extremely slender. Actually fitting the machinery in can be a problem, much less adding weapons systems. Damage stability can be tricky since as soon as a side hull floods, your waterplane moment of inertia drops enormously.

The general consensus is that the difficulties of a trimaran hullform aren't worth it unless you're looking for very high speed - something in the range of 35 knots for a frigate, likely higher for larger ships.

Cruiser on the right, battleship on the left

I'm not aware that anyone has ever considered the Project 1144s to be battleships. Soviet sources appear to generally call them 'heavy missile cruisers', 'nuclear missile cruisers', or a combination of both. Western sources occassionally call them 'battlecruisers', in an amusing reflection of the identity crisis of the ALASKA class.

It's usually a safe assumption that the people who design, build and operate a ship have a pretty good idea what it is, which makes both Project 1144 and the ALASKA class cruisers.

 

[Hood]

I had a quid for every time someone asked "what makes a frigate/destroyer/cruiser/megabattledoomcarrier *delete as applicable*" then I would have enough dosh to build a Gerald Ford in my back garden.

It is because some staff officer said it is for whatever reason, be it size, concept of operation, cost, delusions of grandeur, impressing the treasury, politics, impressing politicians. Or because a book editor/author had to put it somewhere in his 'Big Boyz Book of Warships'.

Given the tendency for modern Western navies to drown everything in fancy names acronyms (see LST becoming Light Amphibious Warship) it can't be long before the old classifications are swept away by Ocean Strike Warships, All-Domain Escort Vessels, Submersible Hypersonic Strike Platforms and all manner of other confusing management speak titles that look fancy on a PowerPoint in bold font.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Sometimes it appears the nonclemature is designed to get a predictable result from whoever holds the credit card to build the ships. Sorry, dinghy's......

 

[paralay]

I'm not aware that anyone has ever considered the Project 1144s to be battleships. Soviet sources appear to generally call them 'heavy missile cruisers', 'nuclear missile cruisers', or a combination of both. Western sources occassionally call them 'battlecruisers', in an amusing reflection of the identity crisis of the ALASKA class.

Battleship (Линкор) is the Russian name of the class of the most powerful armored artillery ships in the XX century.in a broad sense, it is a ship designed to conduct combat operations as part of a squadron;in the traditional sense,
it is a class of heavy armored artillery warships with a displacement of 20 thousand to 70 thousand tons, a length of 150 to 280 meters, with guns of the main caliber of 280-460 mm, with a crew of 1500-2800 people.

project 1144
full displacement 25,860 tons
length 250 meters

 

[Yellow Palace]

Being as Project 1144 is not heavily armoured, has main guns of 100mm or 130mm calibre (depending on the ship) and has a crew of about 700 people, it doesn't meet your criteria.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I had a quid for every time someone asked "what makes a frigate/destroyer/cruiser/megabattledoomcarrier *delete as applicable*" then I would have enough dosh to build a Gerald Ford in my back garden.

It is because some staff officer said it is for whatever reason, be it size, concept of operation, cost, delusions of grandeur, impressing the treasury, politics, impressing politicians. Or because a book editor/author had to put it somewhere in his 'Big Boyz Book of Warships'.

Given the tendency for modern Western navies to drown everything in fancy names acronyms (see LST becoming Light Amphibious Warship) it can't be long before the old classifications are swept away by Ocean Strike Warships, All-Domain Escort Vessels, Submersible Hypersonic Strike Platforms and all manner of other confusing management speak titles that look fancy on a PowerPoint in bold font.

Point of order!

The LAW is much smaller than any LSTs, it's really an LCM

 

[paralay]

Being as Project 1144 is not heavily armoured, has main guns of 100mm or 130mm calibre (depending on the ship) and has a crew of about 700 people, it doesn't meet your criteria.

And you're stubborn

 

[johnpjones1775]

Cruiser on the right, battleship on the left

The Kirovs are nuclear powered cruisers. The soviets and the Russian federation both classify them as cruisers.
No navy or person with any position of knowledge and relevance has ever called them battleships.

The USN/congress began calling them battlecruisers in order to scare up money and support for updating and reactivating the iowas

 

[johnpjones1775]

I had a quid for every time someone asked "what makes a frigate/destroyer/cruiser/megabattledoomcarrier *delete as applicable*" then I would have enough dosh to build a Gerald Ford in my back garden.

It is because some staff officer said it is for whatever reason, be it size, concept of operation, cost, delusions of grandeur, impressing the treasury, politics, impressing politicians. Or because a book editor/author had to put it somewhere in his 'Big Boyz Book of Warships'.

Given the tendency for modern Western navies to drown everything in fancy names acronyms (see LST becoming Light Amphibious Warship) it can't be long before the old classifications are swept away by Ocean Strike Warships, All-Domain Escort Vessels, Submersible Hypersonic Strike Platforms and all manner of other confusing management speak titles that look fancy on a PowerPoint in bold font.

Pretty sure the LAW (they have a new name now) is actually significantly different in intended use and operations from an LST, despite its intended use overlapping with how LSTs were used

 

[johnpjones1775]

And you're stubborn

Lol pot meet kettle.

Bro it’s not a battleship.

 

[Desertfox]

Im pretty sure the defining chracteristic of a battleship was its armor, especially in regards to battleships vs battlecruisers. Seeing how the Kirovs don't have any real armor...

 

[uk 75]

The artwork for the RN Invincible class initially empasised their cruiser like appearance by making them look longer and sleeker with a narrower flightdeck.
The Italian Navy's Vittorio Veneto was another sleek looking cruiser helicopter carrying missile ship.
After them no more cruisers have been built in Europe. European navies have destroyers for area air defence and frigates for everything else.
Only Russia and USA might develop missile platforms which because of their size and armament warrant the term cruiser. China possibly?

 

[paralay]

Im pretty sure the defining chracteristic of a battleship was its armor, especially in regards to battleships vs battlecruisers. Seeing how the Kirovs don't have any real armor...

 

[johnpjones1775]

I don’t know Russian but Kirovs have the standard levels of protection for modern warships.

They have 76mm around the reactor and splinter protection in a few other places. The 76mm of steel around the reactor im pretty sure is to contain/prevent contamination in the even of a melt down or the reactor was damaged. A civilian nuclear ship had something similar iirc.

Unfortunately I cannot find any information on if US carriers have any particular special protection around their reactors.

All modern warships have splinter protection though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don’t know Russian but Kirovs have the standard levels of protection for modern warships.

They have 76mm around the reactor and splinter protection in a few other places. The 76mm of steel around the reactor im pretty sure is to contain/prevent contamination in the even of a melt down or the reactor was damaged. A civilian nuclear ship had something similar iirc.

Unfortunately I cannot find any information on if US carriers have any particular special protection around their reactors.

All modern warships have splinter protection though.

I suspect that's to contain the kinds of pressures that you'd see in the event of a steam line rupture. 50,000lbs of water at (assuming old steam system temps and pressures) ~800psi and 550degF makes one hell of a mess. That's ~23,000kg at 425degC and 3800kPa for the metric folks.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Now that’s all cleared up, let’s get back to the actual topic of cruisers…

19,000 tons
200 VLS
1 5”
3 mk110
1 SEARAM
2 lasers
30kts

Range 5000nmi

Long Strike Cruiser (LCS)

Or

2000 tons
1 mk38
4 MGs
2 RHIBs

Range 2500nmi

Patrol Cruiser (PC)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now that’s all cleared up, let’s get back to the actual topic of cruisers…

19,000 tons
200 VLS
1 5”
3 mk110
1 SEARAM
2 lasers
30kts

Range 5000nmi

Long Strike Cruiser (LCS)

Powering 2x lasers is going to be challenging, assuming megawatt class lasers. Lasers have terrible energy efficiency, a 1-megawatt laser usually takes 6+ megawatts electrical power and turns 5+ of that into heat. Good thing there's a whole ocean to use as a heat sink!

Using a mix of Mk41 and Mk57 VLS would probably make the desired count close to achievable in a reasonable size hull. I mean, 2x 64cell Mk41 and 80cells Mk57 may be doable in a 15kton size hull (I'm pretty sure it can be done in a Zumwalt, but at the expense of both guns).

Out of curiosity, why 3x Mk110 guns, and where do you see them being mounted?

Or

2000 tons
1 mk38
4 MGs
2 RHIBs

Range 2500nmi

Patrol Cruiser (PC)

That is a Frigate, if not a Coast Guard Cutter.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Powering 2x lasers is going to be challenging, assuming megawatt class lasers. Lasers have terrible energy efficiency, a 1-megawatt laser usually takes 6+ megawatts electrical power and turns 5+ of that into heat. Good thing there's a whole ocean to use as a heat sink!

Using a mix of Mk41 and Mk57 VLS would probably make the desired count close to achievable in a reasonable size hull. I mean, 2x 64cell Mk41 and 80cells Mk57 may be doable in a 15kton size hull (I'm pretty sure it can be done in a Zumwalt, but at the expense of both guns).

Out of curiosity, why 3x Mk110 guns, and where do you see them being mounted?



That is a Frigate, if not a Coast Guard Cutter.

As for the PC it’s a cruiser because I said it’s a cruiser
(Jemiba or whatever your name is, no one asked for your input or edit of my post.)

As for the rest the mk110s would be P/S/A, would function as a gun based CIWS for air threats, as well as the primary antiFAC battery.
HII’s BMD ship based on the San Antonio could carry up to 300-400 VLS, at roughly 25k tons but that’s also including aviation facilities that can still handle multiple ospreys, so 200VLS on 19k tons seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As for the rest the mk110s would be P/S/A, would function as a gun based CIWS for air threats, as well as the primary antiFAC battery.
HII’s BMD ship based on the San Antonio could carry up to 300-400 VLS, at roughly 25k tons but that’s also including aviation facilities that can still handle multiple ospreys, so 200VLS on 19k tons seems perfectly reasonable.

Oh, I was agreeing with the size of the hull, and it might even be possible on a slightly smaller hull. I stretched a Zumwalt 12m to give it space for a gun and got a rough guess for a displacement increase of almost 2500 tons, so 18,000 metric tons for the ship.

 

[owlscreech]

My understanding is that for the USN the distinguishing feature between a CG and a DDG is that a CG has flagship and task group air defence command & control facilities while a DDG lacks these.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

DD-21, Zumwalt's predecessor, had 128 VLS, with a slightly narrower deckhouse enabling the VLS cells to be placed alongside it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

DD-21, Zumwalt's predecessor, had 128 VLS, with a slightly narrower deckhouse enabling the VLS cells to be placed alongside it.

That had issues with the stealth requirements, though, which is why the Zumwalt has the deckhouse that lines up with the edge of the hull.

But if there's no need for the extreme RCS requirements, then yes another 48 Mk57 VLS cells are good and would get us to the 200ish (192 in this case) VLS cells spec'd for the cruiser by replacing one gun mount with a 64cell Mk41.

 

[johnpjones1775]

My understanding is that for the USN the distinguishing feature between a CG and a DDG is that a CG has flagship and task group air defence command & control facilities while a DDG lacks these.

Not really the FIII Burkes have C&C spaces in them now from I’ve read and heard.

The cruiser designation is just dying out that’s all.

Personally I think large surface combatants should be cruisers, medium/small frigates, and modern corvettes and things like the ASuW LCSes should shoulder the title destroyer since it is just a shortening of torpedo boat destroyer, and modern destroyers do not fit that role at all any more.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not really the FIII Burkes have C&C spaces in them now from I’ve read and heard.

The cruiser designation is just dying out that’s all.

Personally I think large surface combatants should be cruisers, medium/small frigates, and modern corvettes and things like the ASuW LCSes should shoulder the title destroyer since it is just a shortening of torpedo boat destroyer, and modern destroyers do not fit that role at all any more.

Back in the sailing days, the Frigate was the largest ship outside the line of battle. With steam engines, cruiser took over that definition, as the largest ship not a battleship.

Then torpedo boats happened, and torpedo boat destroyers to protect the large ships against them. Between 1893 and 1918, destroyers went from 300 tons to 1500 tons, and basically replaced the torpedo boat offensively because they had the same speed. Between 1918 and 1943, destroyers went from 1500 tons to 3500 tons, as they added even more and larger caliber guns and large sets of torpedoes, and then all the AA guns.

Post WW2, destroyers basically doubled in displacement again, because of how big the new AA missile systems were.

 

[Yellow Palace]

FWIW, the French navy has frégates, some of which are considered to be destroyers, some frigates, and some corvettes by English-speaking commentators. Previously, they had escorteurs, which were variously classified as destroyers, frigates or corvettes by English-speaking commentators. Their gun destroyers were called contre-torpilleurs.

All of which is to reiterate, the terms are all completely made up and don't really matter. I have a lot of time for the Soviet/Russian system, which goes something like

• Antisubmarine cruiser (Project 1123, the MOSKVA class)
• Large anti-submarine ship (NATO destroyer)
• Anti-submarine ship (NATO frigate)
• Small anti-submarine ship (NATO corvette)
• Anti-submarine ship 3rd rank
• Anti-submarine cutter

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

All of which is to reiterate, the terms are all completely made up and don't really matter. I have a lot of time for the Soviet/Russian system, which goes something like

• Antisubmarine cruiser (Project 1123, the MOSKVA class)
• Large anti-submarine ship (NATO destroyer)
• Anti-submarine ship (NATO frigate)
• Small anti-submarine ship (NATO corvette)
• Anti-submarine ship 3rd rank
• Anti-submarine cutter

I feel like Large Missile Ship (BPK, Bolshoi Raketnyi Korabl) would be a better description of most NATO guided missile destroyers.

 

[Charlesferdinand]

Back in the sailing days, the Frigate was the largest ship outside the line of battle. With steam engines, cruiser took over that definition, as the largest ship not a battleship.

Good point, the definition of cruiser in the days of the big gun was as much about what it wasn't as about what it was, ie a cruiser wasn't part of the line of battle and didn't carry big guns (until Fisher decided to confuse matters). In the absence of a line of battle, the cruiser designation loses much of meaning, much like the destroyer designation with the end of surface torpedo attacks.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

BRING BACK THE DESTROYER LEADER!

The USN had a perfectly reasonable system for classifying their ships into destroyer leaders (big escorts), destroyers (medium sized escorts), and destroyer escorts (small cheap escorts), with some distinctions between antiair and ASW optimized ships.

Cruisers no longer exist; the USN didn't end up building CSGN. Kirovs are fleet command and ASW platforms intended to escort SSBNs, for crying out loud. Chinese air defense destroyers are intended to work in concert with land based air umbrellas and carriers in the future.

The SSN and certain SSGNs have taken over the traditional wartime cruiser jobs.