Why do modern navies bother with classes like "Cruiser" or "Destroyer" when damn near everything is a big missile bus...

Why do modern navies bother with classes like "Cruiser" or "Destroyer" when damn near everything is a big missile bus that does the same thing?

Attached: PLAN Destroyer Qingdao Hawaii port of call.jpg (2000x1315, 335K)

>a big missile bus that does the same thing?
Lol no some are targets and some are big targets.

Why classify anything when you can take severe liberties with identifying characteristics and make anything seem relative? Fish are just dogs with scales and no legs right?

Well they are both vertabrates

I'm talking about non-carrier major surface combatants btw. I understand why FACs, Cutters, Corvettes, and Missile Boats exist.

Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers all seem to be redundant.

politics

destroyers tend to be perceived as small and cheap, despite the fact modern destroyers are cruisers in all but name and are heavier than WW2 cruisers,
the ticonderoga was named a cruiser due to a perceived lack of cruisers, which only really highlights the lack of meaningful distinction between the two classes

both cruiser and destroyed ought to be renamed into a more meaningful name, like how heavy and medium tanks were succeeded by MBTs
but there really isnt any real point to that

Are you the guy who gets mad about ammo boxes being call ammo boxes?

They're classified based on their designed combat roles.

in a Carrier Group, they have a unique purpose for protecting the Carrier. Even literally being a meat shield if need be.

It's simple, role. Politics plays into it but if you can't fucking tell the difference between a corvette and a destroyer you're an idiot:

Major surface combatants:
Cruiser: largest ocean going surface combatant (more or less obsolete)
Destroyer: large ocean going surface combatant (~150 m long)
Frigate: ocean going multirole ship (100-150 m long)

Small surface combatants:
Corvette: littoral combat ship/limited offensive ability (> 100 m long)
Fast Attack Craft: a small littoral anti-surface ship (variable size)

Patrol and Policing ships:
Patrol ship: small local policing ship (variable size)

Attached: US_Navy_040910-N-8157F-063_Sailors_man_the_rails_aboard_the_Navy's_newest_and_most_advanced_Arl (2154x1377, 396K)

I maintain that the Flight II Burkes (i.e. those with hangars) and Zumwalts should be redesignated as cruisers under the CG registry

Because navies fear the chads of the sea.

Attached: 1363214020211.jpg (650x755, 170K)

So how feasible would it be for a small hobbo community to live in one of these as stowaways?

OP's argument is more like:

fish are the same size as dogs

therefore we should get rid of all fish and dogs

>Largest ocean-going surface combatant
Wouldn't those be battlewagons? Or just when BBs were phased out?

The current biggest surface combatant is an aircraft carrying cruiser.

Well when we mounted guns on the damn things, they could be categorized by the caliber of the gun, and how much it carried.
Nowadays it’s a quantity thing more than quality, on carrying 96 missles or 42, but they carry the same armaments and radars nonetheless, so size the only difference, which kinda dilutes it a bit.

Destroyers, not aircraft carriers, are the modern battleship. They are the most powerful surface combatants afloat. Many are approaching the weight of pre-dreadnought battleships. A modern guided missile destroyer could destroy a mid-20th century battlewagon with ease. If a carrier got into a gun battle with a destroyer, it would be destroyed easily. That is why they need destroyers to escort them.

Any navy without destroyers, is like a early 20th century navy without battleships. Destroyers are the modern battleship, and all naval strength should be measured in destroyers, not carriers or SSBNs. They should be considered capital ships.

The USN has over 100 destroyers and destroyer-based cruisers.

Attached: Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Daring_in_the_English_Channel_MOD_45151622-e1499680790525.jpg (1021x580, 144K)

difference between cruiser and destroyer these days is literally nothing else but whether that ship has a staff room or not. i.e. whether that ship can serve as a flagship of a fleet.

Ain't no garden gnome looking motherfucker gets to be called a captial ship with a stragiht face

Attached: 1549125260591.jpg (1021x580, 177K)

If giant nuclear powered (which is a deterrent to blowing them up) ships don't violate international law, why not massive nuclear powered tanks?

Dumb. Do research as to why something is classified what it is. That is your answer. Do the research yourself and stop being lazy. Literally an answer you can Google yourself as to the reasons boats are classified what they are

ask Mims.

>100
Pls WW3 so we can make that a thousand.

Ship classes have always been mostly subjective, outside clearly specialist ships such as aircraft carriers.

The older classification would be:
Cruiser - Naval vessel designed for independent operation, has more endurance than other combat vessels
(Torpedo Boat) Destroyer - Fast vessel designed as an escort or independent wolfpack as an interceptor.
Frigate - Smallest oceangoing warship that can properly be considered a warship.
Corvette - Smallest class escort or littoral/coastal duty, usually limited in endurance
Your fast attack or torpedo boat, or other specialty small craft such as riverine boats don't really fit with the others especially when they don't have the crew complement or size typical to a corvette. May or may not be capable of operation in rough seas.

The whole WW2esque classification is pretty much defunct now that destroyers and frigates tend to act alone, mostly because there is no tactical need due to the lack of naval conflict.

The Chinese navy is quite impressive desu. I sometimes wish I was Chinese
>Qingdao
Even better

...

50 cents has been deposited in your account.

How is it even possible to be this wrong? Carriers are the primary surface combatants and have been since WW2. Guns aren't even effective as anti-surface weapons and haven't been for close to 80 years at this point. ALCMs have an effective range of close to 2500 km at this point, good luck closing for two days in order to try and fire a gun you retard. Even long-range surface-launched anti-ship missiles have ranges maxing out at less than 1,000 kk. Cruisers and destroyers are anti-aircraft and anti-submarine escorts; they have virtually no anti-surface value at this point. The Type 45 you posted is literally designated as an anti-aircraft destroyer, it boggles the mind that you're this dumb.

Thanks but it won't change my opinion

>Many are approaching the weight of pre-dreadnought battleships

Hell, the Zumwalts match the Virginia class battleships, and are significantly heavier than every US battleship up to and including USS Ohio (BB-12).

As ships get larger and stronger, they also get heavier and slower. At a certain point they get so big that a reclasification is in order. Battleships are bigger than Cruisers, which are bigger than Destroyers, which are bigger than Frigates, which are bigger than Corvettes. Heavy Frigates can be close to light Destroyers in capability, and this is where the lines get blurred.

Except none of that is remotely true. No one has built a battleship since the 1940's, the Zumwalt class destroyer displaces more than the Tichonderoga-class cruiser, which is almost identical in displacement to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. In spite of that, they all make about 30 kn. Did you learn about this from World of Warships or something?

>everything is getting bigger
no shit
>big Destroyers are comparable in size to small Cruisers.
did I not just address that? I swear I addressed that.
>nobody even builds battleships anymore
and most navies don't field cruisers. how is this relavent to ship classification?

Modern (and to be honest, pre-modern) naval nomenclature is a clusterfuck with little commonality between nations, and frequently lacking consistency or reason even within the same force. For example the “cruiser gap” during the Cold War lead to America reclassifying ships in 1975 for no reason beyond dick waving. Basically there's no point in looking for logic in these things.

Also, almost everybody in this thread is wrong, modern classifications are not based on size, but role and capabilities.

>As ships get larger and stronger, they also get heavier and slower.

South Dakota class
207 m long, 33 m wide, 35600 tons
27.5 knots

Iowa class
262 m long, 33 m wide, 45700 tons
33 knots