Re: [GZG] Battlecruisers

[Ryan Gill <rmgill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:41 AM +0300 12/26/06, John Atkinson wrote:
>
>Actually, I'm not 100% sure of displacements.  But I was at a naval
>museum a while back with hordes of ship models.  One of the things
>they had was a "Destroyer" display case with models of every destroyer
>the USN ever built.

Just to throw some numbers out there for you.

Old  US WWII CAs (Cleveland) were in the range of 13,000 tons. The CLAA's (Atlanta, Oakland, Juneau Classes)  were ~8,500 tons. The Baltimores were 17,000 tons.

The Longbeach GGNs were 16,000 tons.
The Ticonderogas got smaller at 10,000 tons (smaller computers ya know but carry a the same weapons compliment and are more capable and faster firing).

Arligh Burkes and Sprucans are 9,000 tons
Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFGs are 4,000 tons. The LCS will be 3,000 tons.

Mine hunters and other auxiliaries have gotten bigger.

European DD's are in the 4,000 to 7,000 ton range (Type 42s and the new type 45s as well as the French Suffrens and Forbins).

Bear in mind, that the WWI Dreadnaught era Battleship was ~16,000 tons (South Carolinas) . The Maine, a pre-dreadnaught, was 6,000 tons, the Connecticuts (best of the US made pre-dreadnaughts) were 16,000 tons. The Montana's were to have a 70,783 ton full load. HMS Dreadnaught herself was 18,000 tons. That's quite a growth of tonnage in less than 40 years wouldn't you say?

Carriers have done the same thing. The Lexington and Saratoga were 38,000 tons. The Yorktowns were 25,000 tons. The Essexes were 35,000 tons. The Nimitz class carriers gross out at 100,000 tons!

Battleships didn't stop being battleships, they just got larger. Destroyers and Frigates (think DDE and sloop) didn't stop doing what they do, they've just gotten bigger. And Bigger means more $$$$ to build, even for the US.

>>From a purely logical standpoint, I can see a huge advantage in
>standardizing all your designs to a single hull type and configuring
>the weapon packages appropriately for the role.  The medium
>cruiser-size hull (escort cruiser in FB navies) seems to be capable of
>carrying enough equipment to do this decently.  Those ships and two
>breeds of capital ship (a large carrier and a dreadnought-sized
>warship) would seem to suffice for all direct combat roles created by
>the FT rules.

In Ship design theory for wet navies, longer hulls mean more speed. This isn't the case with space craft. Mass is mass. If it's not needed it's burning reaction mass or just slowing you down. So uniform hulls for different roles don't buy you savings there or should not on theory.
-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
-                 Data Center Operations Group                -
-               http://web.turner.com/data_center/             -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill                   One CNN Center SE0813 E -
- Internet Technologies   --   Data Center Operations Manager  -
- Hours 9:30am - 5:30pm Mon - Fri        (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc) -
- Cellular: 404-545-6205             e-mail: Ryan.Gill@xxxxxxx -
- Office: 404-588-6191                                         -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-             Emergency Power-off != Door release!             -
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l