What roles do cruisers, destroyers, and frigates have in a modern day navy?
>>29371909
Today there's not a lot of distinction between cruisers and frigates, as they both essentially act a giant floating missile bays. Frigates are just for navies that can't actually afford destroyers and cruisers.
>>29371909
>What roles do cruisers, destroyers, and frigates have in a modern day navy?
Blue water escort, mainly.
The names cruiser/destroyer/frigate don't really mean anything any more.
>Sejong the Great class destroyer: 11,000 tons
>Ticonderoga class cruiser: 9,000 tons
>Hobart class destroyer: 6,500 tons
>F125 class frigate: 8,000 tons
>>29371909
targets for submarines
>>29371909
Housing for deep sea fish after they get sunk by subs.
>>29372018
It depends. Trying to compare tonnage to the WW2 usage of the titles is silly. Comparing their general roles is much more accurate.
>>29371909
Cruisers : anti air defense
Destroyers: universal platform for aa defense and submarine tracking
Frigates : Submarine hunting
Waiting to be converted to carriers.
>>29372408
Not completely accurate though. British and French Destroyers are mostly AA-based. Them being multi-mission is really only true outside of Europe (where you'll see either Burke clones or Chinese vessels).
>>29371909
just piss about shooting the occasional missile at a plane or dropping some depth charges. teh few of them that people bother to equip with AShMs dont have enough for any kind of meaningful engagement
If cruisers are just missile spam and deph charges doesn't it make sense to go for higher quantity and smaller ship sizes? Why couldn't have remote missile platforms networked together?
>>29371909
>Anti-Surface
>Anti-Submarine
>Anti-Air
All ships share these basic roles. The exact balance depends on the exact make of the ships involved.
>>29372442
> teh few of them that people bother to equip with AShMs dont have enough for any kind of meaningful engagement
When one missile knocks your ship out of the fight and eight missiles is enough to destroy half of most navies surface combatants then yes a couple of quad launchers is enough.
You're not going to see Jutland, get over it
>>29371909
Depends who you are asking.
>>29372018
>F125 class frigate: 8,000 tons
>1 × 127 mm, 2 × 27 mm, 7 × 12.7 mm, 2 × 21 short range SAMs, 8 × RGM-84 Harpoon, Water cannons
>Steregushchy-class corvette: 2,200 tons
>1 × 100mm, 2 × 14.5mm, 12 × 4 short range SAMs, 2 × 4 Uran Kh-35, 2 × AK-630M, 2 × 4 330mm torpedo tubes
Keks were had.
They are mostly completely useless.
Should just be building armed carriers with sufficient VLS for attack/self-defense while being mostly aviation.
>>29372606
But wait, it gets better.
>F125 class frigate: 8,000 tons
>1 × 127 mm, 2 × 27 mm, 7 × 12.7 mm, 2 × 21 short range SAMs, 8 × RGM-84 Harpoon, Water cannons
>Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate: 4,500 tonnes
>1 × 130mm, 2 × 14.5mm, 32 × 4 short range SAMs, 2 × 8 Oniks/Kalibr
Fucking krauts, what is wrong with them?
>>29371909
I served on the USS Port Royal if you have any questions about ship life or any shit like that.
>>29372685
>>29372606
>Russian ship has more weapons on it than a western ship
Since when is this news? They have fucking nuclear capable anti-ship cruise missiles launching out of their carrier flight decks.
>>29372586
>You're not going to see Jutland
Wow.
Just kick me in the nuts and be done with it.
>>29372787
It's not about whose ships these are, it's about how something the size of a destroyer has armament worse than a fucking corvette.
>>29371909
Destroyers are escort or patrol.
Cruisers are stand alone intercontinental.
Frigates are coastguard.
It really depends on the type of frigate/destroyer/cruiser to be honest.
Nations build ships based on what their needs are.
for example japan builds burke copies with BMD capabilities because the norks have IRBM's.
>>29372606
There's really no valid reason they didn't give it VLS. Get rid of some of that hanger space and flight deck (it doesn't need 2 Tigers) and there'd be room.
>>29372903
Weren't the Oliver Hazard Perry class intended as escorts for convoys going to Europe?
what would you guys say is the best multi-role warship out there?
>>29373167
Nimitz
>>29373167
>best multi-role warship
What does that mean?
>>29373167
Zumwalt.
>tons of missiles
>Guns are powerful enough it technically qualifies as a battleship
>nice big aviation hanger for chilling out
>>29373185
something that can handle a mixture roles like anti air, anti submarine, and anti ship at the same time.
Do you guys think minesweeper ships are obsolete? Because it seems like a helicopter could do the same thing with less risk of casualties.
>>29372539
>Why couldn't have remote missile platforms networked together?
Because you need sailors to sail a ship, anon.
>>29371909
They're just missile/torpedo sponges to protect the carriers
true story
>>29373211
name ONE battleship that was laid down after 1939 that the zumwalt can engage with her guns alone without being turned into a billion dollar coral reef project. ONE.
>>29373505
Literally any of them.
The Zummy's guns can shoot ridiculously far.
>>29373542
Doesn't matter how far you can shoot
A ship can only see 20~ miles
>>29373658
Do you actually fucking think artillery can only be used within visual range?
I had no idea they still even made cruisers, obviously they're not beautiful like this anymore : (
>>29373858
Nobody makes real cruisers anymore.
>>29372685
I'm in love
Stupid question here. Could the SM-3 be used against aircraft?
my buddy and i both had today off work so last night we got wasted and played battleship(no electronic bullshit, good old fashioned peg version), I won 4/5 games and each time my cruiser was my last ship alive
>>29373947
cool story bro
>>29373912
>Stupid question here. Could the SM-3 be used against aircraft?
>SM-3
>Missile made entirely to hit fast airborne objects
No of course it can't
>>29373988
Has it ever once been demonstrated against a non-missile target?
>>29374011
Name three good reasons why a missile that can shoot down other missiles would not also be able to shoot down aircraft.
>>29374038
I didn't say that dipshit. I asked if it had ever been demonstrated. Despite what you seem to think, there is a big difference between a subsonic flat trajectory target and a hypersonic high trajectory target.
>>29374038
theoretically able =/= designed and/or tested for
>>29374081
But why would a missile that can shoot down missiles be unable to also hit planes? I'm just asking for reasons why you'd think that it couldn't be done.
>>29374122
But literally why not?
>>29374141
I never said it couldn't. I asked if it had been demonstrated. Jesus fucking christ, Jamal.
>>29374160
The statement you cited is in fact the answer to your question. You can't be so dense that you don't understand that.
>>29374178
I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles, then.
>>29374166
Why does it need to be demonstrated? It's like asking what would happen if you shot a panda with an M16. Sure, I've never seen a panda shot with an M16, nor has it probably happened at any point in human history. Yet, based on what I know about Panada's and M16's, I can logically surmise that the Panda is probably going to die without actually tracking down a panda and shooting it with an M16.
>>29374235
What a wholly invalid analogy. The difference in physical properties between the types of targets is absolutely massive. If the capability was factually established, then the navy wouldn't bother using a host of much shorter range SAMs.
>>29374011
In what way is an aircraft not just a slower larger missile
>>29372685
Funny story
Gorshkov carries the same anti air missiles as Peter the Great although not as many.
>>29374258
So again, why would a missile......designed to shoot down fast-moving objects travelling through air, not be able to hit planes? Just give us a list of reasons.
>>29374268
Trajectory, which is a huge fucking deal in the physics of flight.
>>29374300
You illiterate fucking nigger, nobody ever said it theoretically couldn't. You could also shoot down a supersonic missile with the cannon on a fighter aircraft. That doesn't make it tested or practical.
>>29374300
Cite ONE SINGLE POST where anyone said it was impossible. You really need to read what you're citing because what you're doing is actually extremely annoying.
>>29374313
The original question was: Could the SM-3 be used against aircraft? And the answer is a resounding: YES. Why are you so butt-hurt about this?
>>29374300
So again, why would a missile... designed to shoot down fast-moving objects travelling through air at long range be largely ignore in favor of much shorter range solutions? Just give us a list of reasons.
>>29374285
>Peter the Great
>Redut
Lol, what?
>>29374342
Read between the lines douchenugget. The question obviously meant in practical reality, not in hyperbolic, hypothetical terms.
>>29374300
Then why isn't the SM-3 used as an anti-aircraft missile? Just answer the question.
>>29374384
>Then why isn't the SM-3 used as an anti-aircraft missile?
How do you know that it isn't?
>>29374367
The SM-3 is designed to hit fast-moving, flying objects. Therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that it could be used to shoot down planes. There is no hyperbole involved.
Somali Pirate smackers
>>29374384
>Then why isn't the SM-3 used as an anti-aircraft missile?
Who says it isn't?
That's like saying a fucking Javelin isn't used against infantry because it's an anti-tank weapon.
>>29374451
> How do you know that it isn't?
That's not how this works. How do you know there aren't secret high power anti-missile lasers all over carriers? You don't. But there's also no evidence to suggest there are. What you're spewing is just conjecture.
>>29374488
see
>>29374488
Now you're just making assertions with zero supporting evidence.
>>29374507
>How do you know there aren't secret high power anti-missile lasers all over carriers?
Because I logically know that the current carriers don't have enough extra power to support such a system, which is exactly why the Gerald Ford is being built with an mega-huge reactor that has more than double the amount of power required to actually run the ships system: they expect to attach a laser at some point. Because I am a reasonable intelligent human being, I am able to make educated assumptions that preclude the existence of top secret laser beams on the nimitz-class boats. In much the same way, I am able to safely conclude that the SM-3, a missile designed for the purpose of hitting fast-moving objects in the air, would be usable against aircraft.
>>29374609
The Nimitz class could absolutely support high use lasers by redistributing power temporarily to fire them.
You very directly implied that the SM-3 has been used against aircraft at the very least in a test environment. That's still just conjecturing and nothing more. No idea how and why you don't understand that.
>>29374609
Did you honestly not understand that the Nimitz laser comment was not serious and was only an example to illustrate the fact that you've made claims or implications without concrete evidence to back up said claims?
>>29374643
>You very directly implied that the SM-3 has been used against aircraft at the very least in a test environment.
Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. But a ballistic missile is much more challenging target than an aircraft, so any missile that can hit a BM can definitely hit a regular aircraft.
It's like asking if Usain Bolt could beat Keanu Reeves in a 200-meter dash. Even though Usain and Keanu have never actually faced each other in the 200-meter dash, most reasonable people would be able to predict the winner rather easily.
If I said that Usain Bolt could beat Keanu Reeves in a 200-meter dash, then I obviously can't prove that, but most reasonable people would agree with me anyway. Just like most reasonable people would agree that a missile capable of hitting fast-moving objects in the sky would obviously be capable of hitting aircraft.
>>29374670
The SM-3 is designed hit fast-moving objects in the sky. That's not conjecture, that's a concrete fact buckaroo.
>>29374719
Nobody is asking about theoreticals anymore. You made the claim without backing it up and got called out for doing so. That is what is at issue now.
>>29374733
You can "call me out" all you want, I suppose. Doesn't change the fact that a missile capable of hitting fast-moving objects in the sky would obviously be capable of hitting aircraft.
>>29374730
Hypersonic, very high altitude and trajectory targets. It wasn't designed by Raytheon to hit aircraft. That's a concrete fact backaroo. The possibility that it could theoretically hit a plane doesn't change the fact that is was never designed to do so.
>>29374759
You never even understood the original question. It's really disconcerting that you don't grasp that.
>>29374762
>The possibility that it could theoretically hit a plane doesn't change the fact that is was never designed to do so.
But hitting a ballistic missile is much harder than hitting a plane, so why would a missile capable of hitting ballistic missiles be incapable of hitting planes?
>>29374719
>any missile that can hit a BM can definitely hit a regular aircraft
No, not really. I'm too sleepy for this autism, so I'll just exaggerate to make it as clear as possible: imagine trying to hit An-2 with A-135.
t.not the anon you are talking to
>>29374770
A missile designed to hit a plane is going to be much better at doing so than a missile designed to hit a ballistic missile. A BMD missile is going to be pretty much infinitely better at that task than a missile designed to hit an aircraft.
>>29374773
I don't see what would be the issue unless there is some sort of programming/electronics limitation in the A-135's
>>29374768
The original question was:
>Could the SM-3 be used against aircraft?
The answer to that question is: Yes.
Why is that so hard?
>>29374800
As the person who posed the original question AND explained its meaning to you already, no, you did not understand it.
>>29374773
>imagine trying to hit An-2 with A-135.
There's nothing impossible about that. It's a radar-guided missile and An-2's show up on radar.
>>29374796
>A missile designed to hit a plane is going to be much better at doing so than a missile designed to hit a ballistic missile.
That might very well be true. But there still isn't any reason why you could not use the SM-3 against aircraft.
>>29374815
Actually, yes there is a huge reason you couldn't today: It lacks the software to do so.
>>29374797
No, it has more to do with how it accelerates to Mach 17 in a matter of seconds. If you don't see an issue with trying to hit an aircraft with it I guess it can not be helped. Cheers.
>>29374827
>It lacks the software to do so.
Says who?
>>29374827
Congratulations! This is the first actual reason for why the SM-3 couldn't be used against aircraft! You finally did!
Still, you could just reprogram it if you wanted to. That's a simple update anon.
Also: >>29374847 this guy has a point. How do you know that the software isn't there?
>>29374840
If the aircraft is far enough away then I don't see the issue.
>>29374847
Says Raytheon, the designers. They never built the software for it as far as anyone knows.
>>29374869
> That's a simple update anon.
No, it's not simple. It would take a lot of time and money to get it working. It's not just a few mouse clicks in some GUI.
>>29374869
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the software exists. You are doing the same shit where you're implying a capability actually exists right now without any evidence to support that idea.
>>29374907
Raytheon obviously knows how to make software that allows a missile to hit a plane. I'm sure they could put that software into the SM-3 if they put their minds to it.
>>29374996
> I'm sure they could
> could
You're changing the subject and you damn well know it.
>>29375011
Yes COULD. It's completely possible.
>>29375018
Literally nobody ever implied otherwise. This entire thread is talking about things that actually exist right now, not things that could exist if the powers that be decided to pursue them.
>>29375080
To be fair, we still don't know for certain that the software isn't in the missile. That's just speculation.
>>29375128
What is speculation is you suggesting it does exist without any evidence. It's not speculation to assume something doesn't exist when there's no evidence because that is, by definition, based on the evidence or in this case lack thereof.
You really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
>>29375158
The software obviously exists. That's what Raytheon does. It could be as simple as changing a few settings.
>>29375214
Prove it. Right now.
>>29374356
Same anti air missiles
Both Gorshkov and Peter the Great use 48N6 with 250km range and 9M96 with 120 - 150km depending on source. The Admiral Nakhimov will be refitted with S-300FM not Redut because the system is mature and they currently field the same missiles. The difference is S-300FM does not use Morfey 'CIWS type' missile (9M100?) and will probably not use 77N6 type missiles.
>>29375225
Why wouldn't they be able to program the missile to hit aircraft if they wanted to?
>>29375283
That's not what you said nigger. You said it exists, in the present tense. Prove it.
>>29372606
>>29372685
get fucked vatnik
>>29375283
see
>>29375214
> The software obviously exists.
That's word for word what you said. There is no indication from anyone that this is true for the SM-3, which is the only missile being discussed here.
>>29375304
A reasonable person would assume that a company such as Raytheon would be able to make a missile hit a plane. That's good enough for me.
>>29375343
Not the issue faggot. This is not and never was an issue of ability to do something if funded and worked on. This is entirely about the ability of it to do so today. Since you don't speak English and can't read, this fact has been lost on you.
>>29375341
How is tracking a missile so different than tracking an aircraft? Either way, the missile just has to be able to track the target and plot an intercept trajectory.
>>29375351
It's already been explained many times in this thread.
>>29375331
Holy shit hohol
Why you so mad?
>>29375348
The missile is obviously able to hit objects in the air. So it already has the software required to identify, track, and plot an intercept trajectory. Why wouldn't that same software be able to make the missile hit a plane?
>>29372830
the way I understand it the reasoning behind having ships with paltry armaments is they are cheaper and more of them can be produced, not putting all your eggs in one basket and all.
>>29375351
Hypersonic, high trajectory missiles are drastically different than subsonic, flat, and relatively low trajectory planes. This is a fact of basic physics.
>>29375354
But a plane is always going to be a slower, easier target.
>>29375261
Gorshkov uses only the 9M96 type missiles, Peter the Great uses 48 5V55 and 48 48N6 NOT Redut.
Admiral Nakhimov uses only 5V55, and will be refitted with 96 48N6.
>The difference is S-300FM does not use Morfey
Er, what? S-300FM is fitted only to Peter the Great which is the 48N6 missile and the 30N6 fire control radar.
>>29375369
Yeah, but if the software can plot an intercept trajectory against the ballistic missile, then why wouldn't also be able to do so against a plane?
>>29375363
The comparison you are making is like comparing a .45acp bullet fired at a 60 degree angle (~620 mph) vs a baseball being thrown from the mound to the plate (~95 mph).
The mere fact that they are both projectiles is pretty much the least important factor to consider.
>>29375381
Because the optimization is completely different.
frigates generally don't have antiship capabilities
>>29375425
Type 23 - 8 Harpoons
OHP - up to 40 Harpoons
Talwar - 8 Brahmos/Klub
FREMM - 8 Exorcet/Otomat
Type 054 - 8 C-303
Gorshkov - 16 Oniks/Kalibr
???
>>29375380
>Gorshkov uses only the 9M96 type missiles
No, pic related.
>Peter the Great uses 48 5V55 and 48 48N6 NOT Redut.
Redut isn't a missile, that's what he was saying since his first post. Redut is a VLS. You're post should be 'Peter the Great uses Rif-M NOT Redut'.
>Er, what?
Redut VLS is a universal launcher, it can house missiles used by Morpheus, Vityaz and Prometheus SAM Systems.
>S-300FM is fitted only to Peter the Great
Neither posts say otherwise, I don't understand the confusion.
There's no clear distinction between the terms anymore. Nowadays a lot of navies are calling their destroyers frigates for political reasons.
I dare you to find a better looking ship
>>29376336
>Nowadays a lot of navies are calling their destroyers frigates for political reasons.
Please don't tell me its because "destroyer" sounds violent
>>29376379
It's a boat, but I dun care about your gay rules.
>>29372328
>>29372362
>>29372427
>>29373464
Dedicated shitposting platforms too, I see
>>29376379
All modern day Russian service vessels are sexy AF, I hope they're just as capable as they look.
Sharing my stupidity.
Anons literally capped my posts because I thought we needed to build long range missile patrol boats. Mini destroyers.
I just don't see how we can build 30 Zumwalts, 30 Virginias, 10 Gerald R Fords, etc. Who knows what they want to replace the Ohios in a decade or two. I just don't see it in the budget.
Anyhow, rate my stupidity. I suck at communication but if you read all my posts you'll catch my drift. Something smaller than a Corvette, larger than a patrol boat, with the capabilities of larger ships and decked out with an obscene amount of weapons for its size.
I really like the type 022 missile boats China has.
>>29376393
I've always imagined an up-armed Armidale class.
Maybe equipped with short range AA missiles in a VLS along the sides of the bonnet or Klub sized ground attack missiles or ASM
>>29373988
>>29374038
>>29374141
>>29374160
>>29374235
>>29374300
>>29374342
>>29374488
That moment where nobody has done even a slight bit of research. the SM-3 carries a kinetic kill warhead designed for use in an exo atmospheric environment.
Its warhead will not work in atmosphere. it might have a chance against say a U2 or something else flying on the edge of our atmosphere but it wont function any lower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Exo-Atmospheric_Projectile
>>29376289
>No, pic related
They are far to big to be 48N6 (see this pic), more either Gorshkov is getting A-135 or they are UKSK tubes.
>Redut isn't a missile
So far its only held a single 9M96 missile per tube, so its pretty common to call the missile Redut. Rif is the export land version BTW. Peter the Great has Fort and Fort-M.
>Morpheus and Prometheus
And quad packed 9M96, right? Why not Iskandr as well while you are at it.
>>29371909
to cruise, destroy and to frig
>>29372768
what did you do?
did you get to see any missiles fire?
>>29376534
>A-135
Redut silo is .9m and A-135 has more than 2m diameter so no.
>UKSK
No, pic related.
>so its pretty common to call the missile Redut
No, it's not common. Redut is a VLS not a missile. No one else calls the missile Redut.
>Why not Iskandr as well while you are at it
Because Morpheus and Prometheus are SAM Systems, that is why they use Redut SAM VLS.
The R-500 is based on Granat which the Kalibr 3M14 is also based on. And the 3M14 uses UKSK VLS.
>>29377724
>No, pic related.
Your pic related is 9M96.
>Redut is a VLS
Redut is a SAM system, its designation is 9K96, it uses 9M96 and quad packed 9M100 missiles.
>>29372830
>intended role
>range
>endurance
>safety margins
>seaworthyness
>sensor suite
>aircraft facilities
>ROVs
>UUVs
>RHIBs
>diver support facilities
>surge crew space
there are things armchair generals don't need to consider. it's sufficient to shitpost with meaningless comparisons.
>>29372018
>Zumwalt class destroyer: 15,000 tons
![tritondrone[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7Kv40pY.jpg "tritondrone[1].jpg")
>>29373658
>not understanding sensors
The Zumwalt carries 2 SH-60s and Firescout UAVs. Not to mention the Navys soon to be shitload of MQ-4Cs and P-8s.
Even without that the Zumwalts would still see a WW2 era battle ship before it gets detected and its rounds are definitely more accurate. It wouldn't be a fair fight at all.
If this is a navy thread, don't suppose I could direct a person or two over to my question at >>29381039 (and the post below it), got a couple of questions regarding carriers and what not.
>>29371909
Sinkin ships and takin rips
>>29372427
![DDG-1000-Zumwalt_USS-Arleigh-Burke-FltI_USS-Arleigh-Burke-Flt-II_USS-Nevada-m7[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZCsaKjJ.jpg "DDG-1000-Zumwalt_USS-Arleigh-Burke-FltI_USS-Arleigh-Burke-Flt-II_USS-Nevada-m7[1].jpg")
>>29378853
I remember the day when i finally got a perspective on how fucking big the zumwalt was.
>>29381204
>ww2 battleships are the same size as modern destroyers
Why don't they just armor modern ships too then ???
>>29378853
>who you callin pinhead
>>29371909
Those class names are mostly meaningless now.
Classes are named after the first ship/hull of the new class.
Within each class the mission of the ship can vary.
The new buzz work for the navys is "Multi-Mission". We used to build ships for a specific mission. Now we build them to be good at everything depending on how they are fitted out. They are modular. The new ships can be set up to do lots of different things depending on what they need at the time. Supposed to save money so we don't have to build and support multiple ships just use different configurations of the same hull.
>>29381259
Diminishing returns from armor and high overhead of the weight in terms of speed and maneuverability.
Ships have active defense systems now like EOCS and Phalanx.
Of course the return of the big gun may change things.
>>29381259
Because the armour is pointless when a warhead can be easily adapted to pen/just fuck up everything above deck.
A blind ship is a useless one.
>>29378853
coolest picture I've seen of zumwalt.
Reminds me of a star destroyer for some reason....
>>29381259
Holy fuck! You're right! Why don't we bust out the multi-hulled ships?
Multiple hulls, we'll have ERA skirts that protect the ship as well. They just kinda dangle off the sides to absorb hits from AShMs.
We can fill the space between the hulls with water, so when it does take hits the water will help absorb the shock and when the water drains, the ship will actually go faster.
>>29381379
>Classes are named after the first ship/hull of the new class.
There was an HMS Type 23?
>>29381737
Duke class.
>>29372685
>>29372606
>Why are F125-class frigate so big?
"Other important requirements are long maintenance periods: It should be possible to deploy F125 class frigates for up to two years away from homeports with an average sea operation time of more than 5,000 hours per year (that's nearly 60%) which includes operation under tropical conditions."
"To enhance survivability of the frigates, important systems are laid out in the two island principle, i.e. present at least twice at different places within the ship. This is also visible in the superstructures, which are split in two larger pyramidal deckhouses. The aerials of the Cassidian TRS-4D Active electronically scanned array radar will be distributed over the two pyramids. This will ensure that the ship remains operational in case of severe damage, such as accidents or enemy action"
Can you vodka nigger shiplet do that? No? too bad!
Also, we all know that russian always compensate their lack of quality with a lot of phallic equipment - which doesn't work anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuN-qTyAsK4
