The Chinese Cruiser, forget the carrier...
- Thread starter iceHawk
- Start date
FriedRiceNSpice said:
Yeah but it is a far easier to move aircraft, its fuel, and its weapons than a missle. A missile needs to be reloaded, which is extremely time consuming and cannot be done at sea. The faster, or longer range the missile, the larger it is, which means it is more difficult. You need to be at port to reload a missile.
Aircraft can be flown from its land base to the carrier while it is on the way. Fuel lines can be hook up from the carrier and the oiler, ammo can be transferred from the supply ship to the carrier.
A missile cannot perform reconnaisance, attack, and air defence using one missile.
Eurofighter
New Member
IDonT said:
well, what about those so-called "Assasin's Mace" weapons? I thought in Richard Fisher's report he was talking about a ballistic missile devoted to attack moving targets such as naval surface combatants...
it would be nice if someone can come up with other sources to confirm this, since if this turned out to be true then this would be a serious adversary for the Americans, since their ship's defence system are not prepared to intercept a ballistic missile...
as for the link to Richard Fisher's testament, get it here:
One thing that we also need to remeber is that the line between a DDG and a cruiser is quite uncertain. Some DDG's have the capabilities of cruisers in smaller hulls, and some cruisers are named DDG's for political reasons, just to take examples of what makes the debate over the need of a cruiser so confusing. A large DDG with commando facilities can effectively perform the task of a small/mid-sized cruiser.
The Kirovs still are beyond comparison.
The Kirovs still are beyond comparison.
Lavi said:
The difference between the Burke destroyer and the Tico cruiser is not due to weapons and displacement, both are comparable. The Tico is a cruiser because it has better flag capabilities (command and control, etc)
Ballistic missiles are very difficult to aim. Even the US ballistic missiles are not that accurate against a fixed target. Hitting a manuevering target is practically impossible
It was precisly that what I meant with "commando facilities"...
To complicate the matter there are, however, also smaller ships that has good flag capabilities, like the Dutch Tromp-class. Technically they were frigates, but they had very good flag capabilities and actually replaced two cruisers in Ducth service.
To complicate the matter there are, however, also smaller ships that has good flag capabilities, like the Dutch Tromp-class. Technically they were frigates, but they had very good flag capabilities and actually replaced two cruisers in Ducth service.
I think that the term 'cruiser' should be dropped from use like the 'torbedoboat' and 'battle/line ship'. Cruiser was essentially a ship to cruise independently and operate alon or accompaning escorts. No in any terms was cruiser mented to be a 'flagship' or escort other warships. These charecratistics has came from using old cruisers, obsolence to their dedicated task in such manners in both West and East. US navy dropped the 'cruiser' from their post war ship building, merely just naming some bigger ships whit 'cruiser' prefix to seperate them from smaller ships. All of them were mented to ocean escorts and they were reclassifided as cruisers back in 70's when international naval charts showed that Soviet lead in terms of cruisers.
If the propoused strike cruiser concept would have materialised, USN would have been able to boost whit aegis cruiser whit tomahawks, harpoons, 8inch guns and even VSTOL fighters in wildest concepts! Under this desing was concerned thae revial of cruiser as sole combatant apart of task groups as the Aegis system was felt to be so revolutionar that it would have allowed operations outside taskgroup air cover.
In soviet side, the cruiser term remained whit RKRs, missile cruisers mented to challenge big US carriers. They were thougth a remrant of Stalins and Kuznetsovs naval strategy and hastly replaced in naval building by large ASW ships mented to be more of taskgroup leaders of smaller ASW ships. (whit some desings, like Kresta II and Krivaks the switch would merge only after the ships were launched. Both were desinged to carry P-700 Malachit (SS-n-9) SSMs but substituted the SS-n-14 ASW missile instead (also a derivate from that missile) NATO wasent were of this sift and thought first that the missiles onboard Krestas were SS-N-10, a new SSM of unknown type. (thats why the designation never covered any 'existing' system. This was typical to NATo and surffix SS-N-11 was assigned to normal P-15M Termit (SSN2C) missiles onboard Kashin class due their 'smooth' cannister compared to curved ones in OSA II class FACs. In other hand, NATO designated sometimes different missiles whit same name and systems like SS-N-3, -7, -9, and -22 have covered multible missiles, mostly from totally different desing and designer)
But back in to BPKs these werent 'real' cruisers, but fregates whit cruiser dimmensions. Slavas and Kirovs returned to orginal RKR concept but this time assigned also to function as fleet and flotilla flagships and Slavas could be seen as 'flotilla' leaders to brigade of Sovromenyy class destroyers. Or more correctly, Soviet naval thinking called ultimately a three brigade divisions whit two ligth and one heavy brigade. This thinking can be seen on any class of warships from missile facs to nuclear powered missile submarines. Therefore there were always a shortrange and longrange armed ship build or designed at the same time.
But time will show that Slavas and Kirovs, last of the line will prove them selves as relics of past glory and Russian navy, in great decline of funds and resources will have to focus on smaller, cheaper and more multipurpose ships to rebuilt its migth. China in other hand is the sole candinate of revialing of cruisers and I would be delighted to see any possible cruiser news, thought you can thing many ways about the benefits of these levithans, but big dick is always a big dick, no matter who you dismoralise and look down upon to those who eagerly present one...:china:
If the propoused strike cruiser concept would have materialised, USN would have been able to boost whit aegis cruiser whit tomahawks, harpoons, 8inch guns and even VSTOL fighters in wildest concepts! Under this desing was concerned thae revial of cruiser as sole combatant apart of task groups as the Aegis system was felt to be so revolutionar that it would have allowed operations outside taskgroup air cover.
In soviet side, the cruiser term remained whit RKRs, missile cruisers mented to challenge big US carriers. They were thougth a remrant of Stalins and Kuznetsovs naval strategy and hastly replaced in naval building by large ASW ships mented to be more of taskgroup leaders of smaller ASW ships. (whit some desings, like Kresta II and Krivaks the switch would merge only after the ships were launched. Both were desinged to carry P-700 Malachit (SS-n-9) SSMs but substituted the SS-n-14 ASW missile instead (also a derivate from that missile) NATO wasent were of this sift and thought first that the missiles onboard Krestas were SS-N-10, a new SSM of unknown type. (thats why the designation never covered any 'existing' system. This was typical to NATo and surffix SS-N-11 was assigned to normal P-15M Termit (SSN2C) missiles onboard Kashin class due their 'smooth' cannister compared to curved ones in OSA II class FACs. In other hand, NATO designated sometimes different missiles whit same name and systems like SS-N-3, -7, -9, and -22 have covered multible missiles, mostly from totally different desing and designer)
But back in to BPKs these werent 'real' cruisers, but fregates whit cruiser dimmensions. Slavas and Kirovs returned to orginal RKR concept but this time assigned also to function as fleet and flotilla flagships and Slavas could be seen as 'flotilla' leaders to brigade of Sovromenyy class destroyers. Or more correctly, Soviet naval thinking called ultimately a three brigade divisions whit two ligth and one heavy brigade. This thinking can be seen on any class of warships from missile facs to nuclear powered missile submarines. Therefore there were always a shortrange and longrange armed ship build or designed at the same time.
But time will show that Slavas and Kirovs, last of the line will prove them selves as relics of past glory and Russian navy, in great decline of funds and resources will have to focus on smaller, cheaper and more multipurpose ships to rebuilt its migth. China in other hand is the sole candinate of revialing of cruisers and I would be delighted to see any possible cruiser news, thought you can thing many ways about the benefits of these levithans, but big dick is always a big dick, no matter who you dismoralise and look down upon to those who eagerly present one...:china:
coolieno99
Junior Member
The HN-3 is probably a copy of the Russian Kh-55 cruise missile. Ukraine(Russia) sold 6 Kh-55s to China in 2001. The long range version of the Kh-55 carries expendable conformal external fuel tanks to extend its range to 3000 km(1860 mi). This could also explains China's decision to continue production of the "outdated" H-6 bomber. The H-6 serves just as an aerial platform for the HN-3s. Just bring these missiles within 3000 km from the target(well outside ranges of defending fighter aircrafts and SAMs). Fired. Turn around. Scoot away ... :coffee:IDonT said:
Last edited: