Warship or Disco?

[longknife]

The USS Preble, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, readies for a night fueling at sea.

Read more: Warship?Or Disco? | TIME.com

 

[SteadyMercury]

She looks great in natural light too

 

[Mushroom]

The USS Preble, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, readies for a night fueling at sea.

Read more: Warship?Or Disco? | TIME.com

I guess they did not get the word that Cher was not going to be there.

 

[namvet]

Disco??? ya lost me

 

[longknife]

Disco??? ya lost me

 

[whitehall]

When are they going to put nuclear reactors in Tin Cans? Save a lot on diesel fuel.

 

[Mushroom]

When are they going to put nuclear reactors in Tin Cans? Save a lot on diesel fuel.

Uh, we already did, the USS Bainbridge. Originally DLGN-25 (Destroyer Leader Guided Nuclear) in 1962, it was redesignated as a Cruiser CGN-25 (Cruiser Guided Nuclear) in 1975, and remained with that designation until decommissioning in 1996.

This was the Bainbridge, along with the CGN-9 USS Long Beach and CVAN-65 Enterprise on their record breaking cruise around the world. Just over 2 months, with no refueling.

 

[whitehall]

When are they going to put nuclear reactors in Tin Cans? Save a lot on diesel fuel.

Uh, we already did, the USS Bainbridge. Originally DLGN-25 (Destroyer Leader Guided Nuclear) in 1962, it was redesignated as a Cruiser CGN-25 (Cruiser Guided Nuclear) in 1975, and remained with that designation until decommissioning in 1996.

This was the Bainbridge, along with the CGN-9 USS Long Beach and CVAN-65 Enterprise on their record breaking cruise around the world. Just over 2 months, with no refueling.

Yeah I looked it up. All the Subs and Carriers and about ten Cruisers but not much else and no Destroyers.

 

[longknife]

Whitehall - there's no way ships as small as destroyers have space for reactors.

You probably don't realize just how big a nuke sub is.

 

[hoosier88]

Whitehall - there's no way ships as small as destroyers have space for reactors.

You probably don't realize just how big a nuke sub is.

& even if you could put a nuke power plant on a destroyer - the point to a destroyer is that it's the smallest blue water ship you risk on a regular basis. CVNs sit inside an enormous expenditure of ships, lives, CAP, radar, satellite, SONAR & etc. coverage to keep the CVNs safe yet within range of patrol territory or potential targets.

Destroyers are typically outer pickets in protecting CVNs, you expect to lose them first in a shooting war - & you don't want a nuke powerplant being shot to pieces upon round 1 starting. Destroyers have to be fast, lean, agile - yet have enough firepower to conduct reconnaisance by fire. It's a tough go, there's v. little room for comfort on them. They handle badly in rough seas. They're the greyhounds (& workhorses) of the blue water navy.

 

[NLT]

Whitehall - there's no way ships as small as destroyers have space for reactors.

You probably don't realize just how big a nuke sub is.

I rode 3 tin cans while in the Navy 1979-2003. I also was stationed in New London CT and went on both Boomers and Fast Attack nuc subs. A Destroyer is bigger than both. There difinetly is room on a destroyer for a Nuc reactor. Why they dont have them, I dont know.

 

[Mushroom]

Yeah I looked it up. All the Subs and Carriers and about ten Cruisers but not much else and no Destroyers.

Let me say this one more time.

The USS Bainbridge was built as a destroyer.

Specifically, it was originally commissioned as the DLGN-25, a Destroyer. And it held that classification for 13 years until it was reclassified as a Cruiser.

In 1975, a lot of politicians were worried about the "Cruiser Gap". They looked at the US Navy with 6 Cruisers, and the Soviet Navy with 19 Cruisers, and wanted to catch up to them. The Ticonderoga was still in the design phase, and since our Destroyers and Frigates are already close to the size of the Cruisers of most navies, the decision was made to reclassify a lot of our ships.

So our Frigates became Destroyers, and our Destroyers became Cruisers. But this was in name only so it would look more impressive on paper. The actual ships did not change at all.

The reason why Nuclear Destroyers were not continued further was that it was just not an efficient use of resources and manpower. They needed 50 more people when compared to her sister ships in the Leahy class, had harder time porting because of "Nuclear Free Zones", and in the long run cost more to operate then the conventional powered ships of the same class.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yup, its all just names. A good example is our current frontline warships, the newest Burke destroyer has a larger displacement than a Tico cruiser and Tico's hull design was based on Spruance class destroyers.

The new Zumwalt destroyer has almost a 15k ton displacement, which I believe (not sure haven't looked) is more than any modern era cruiser. Granted there aren't many modern era cruisers anymore.

 

[Mushroom]

Yup, its all just names. A good example is our current frontline warships, the newest Burke destroyer has a larger displacement than a Tico cruiser and Tico's hull design was based on Spruance class destroyers.

The new Zumwalt destroyer has almost a 15k ton displacement, which I believe (not sure haven't looked) is more than any modern era cruiser. Granted there aren't many modern era cruisers anymore.

The real difference between different types of ships is really a matter of the mission of the ship, not the displacement of the ship itself.

As for the Zumwalt, to be honest I think that is a dead-end design. Not enough missiles to defend Carriers, not enough (or big enough) to support Marines on the shore, really a ship without a mission.

I think a few will be built, and the Navy will spend the next 20 years wondering WTF to do with the damned things.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Its a pretty blurry line, both Ticos and Burkes were originally designed with a cold war primary mission of protecting US carriers from Soviet Naval Aviation and submarines and they carry a pretty similar mix of weaponry with an emphasis on AAW. Of course Soviet Union fell apart just as Burkes came online and the class has continued to evolve, with the planned Flight III covering for the canceled CG(X) program.

I've no idea on Zumwalt, it'll carry plenty of missiles since ESSM is 4 per tube but it has no SM2 so lacks the wide area anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile capabilities of our other destroyers. I guess it is a cruise missile platform that can offer long range heavy shore bombardment.

Either way I agree it'll be a one-off, hopefully the learn something from the design/build lifecycle that can be applied to our next surface combatant.