US Navy Fleet Strength, 1968

Cruisers are becoming the next Dreadnoughts, major nations (or at least proponents of their national strength) wanting to build them and show off. Big, strong, surface ships. Even when they're not necessarily needed.

Eh, a strong surface ship for shore maneuvers and trade protection is never "not" needed, even if cruisers have little better life expectancy than destroyers when faced with air power and subs.

wtf is the point of this pic, you can't even read the names of the ships.

We need an updated version of this, sadly the guy who made these is MIA

An Imperial sea power needs lot's of ships to keep the defenseless nigger-nations in check.

Anything the size of a Burke or bigger would have historically been a cruiser anyways.

It's an interesting visualization of the scale of the Navy in a form other than total ships or tonnage numbers. As for the ship names, I'm pretty sure the original is much higher-res.

I do acknowledge that having a larger visible ship does play a role in ensuring security and in the formation of a large battle group. Much like submarines play roles but they are not the end-all naval weapon.
I just don't think cruisers should be built for the purpose of a status symbol, which is what it starts to come across as when some start mentioning China's Type 055 or saying cruisers should have large guns again.

There's literally nothing wrong with putting a couple 8" guns on a modern ship, fight me.

We need to take her back lads. Sneak enough people into NK as tourist to visit the musium, cut her out and sail her back to San Diego.

Every ship has much better use of 100 tonnes of top weight then a pair of 8"/55's that will almost certainly never be fired in anger. A CA's role in the modern world is to serve as a defensive platform with the expectation that killing surface targets will be much better handled by subs or aircraft.

Maybe, but you can't always be sure those aircraft and subs are there.

The idea of naval gunnery as a main element of the ship's design died with the Zumwalt class. The system didn't work and the style of warfare envisioned did not play out. 8in guns aren't going to do any more damage than a harpoon or tomahawk. Which is what would be hitting a ship or a shore target. I get it, I like big naval guns, but they are old and gone the way of the ram. It's a trait inherit to the past and should be appreciated as such.

They'll never be fired in anger during a shooting war against enemy warships. They are quite useful, however, for shore bombardment at a much lower cost than missiles. They are an incredibly visible and therefore effective deterrent against Iranian frigates trying to punch above their weight in confined waters. They ensure nobody starts shooting at close range during tense encounters between Chinese and American ships that don't quite come to blows, but come close.

Why not use high-caliber autocannons? All the benefits of a full battery without nearly as much weight?

Burkes are 10,000 tons?

Guns are hard to spoof with ECM.

Pretty much, yeah. Wikipedia gives 9,600t displacement for a Flight III Burke. The WW2 era Omaha class light cruiser displaced 7000t, and the much larger Brooklyns displaced 9800t.

The Omahas were useless in WW2. The Richmond might have kept Hosogaya from concentrating on USS Salt Lake City, but that was it.

I like them because they had a unique and aesthetic gun layout, not on any actual merits.