Wonder if there may be some strategic cooperation deal between Russia and China, with Russia providing carrier design experience and China modern shipbuilding facilities. You might see one basic design, appearing in PLAN first and subsequently in Russian service (either built in China or in Russia if and when facilities in latter country are up to speed). But this would require enormous trust and long-term committment between the two parties.

Sounds like the Dutch make quite terrible pilots.

Yep, and that’s why they scored A2A kills in the Balkans, surely. They fly a heck of a lot better than you do. Now pls put a sock in it, noob.

I think you will find all those ships built as destroyers during world war 2 were in fact destroyers.;)

But you weren’t talking about WW2-era ships now, were you?

“The RN county class for instance were well beyond any DDG built to date for that service yet were still built to destroyer standards.”

1. Prior to County class there weren’t any DDG in the RN, as County class was RN’s first DDG, so how could it be beyond any DDG built to date for that service (

The RN county class for instance were well beyond any DDG built to date for that service yet were still built to destroyer standards.

In fact, the County class was the UK’s first DDG (DLG actually). And only the UK’s second post-war destroyer class (the first being the 3800 ton Daring class, which has no missiles at all). Beyond it, there is the single 6,000 tons Type 82 guided missile destroyer Bristol, beyond which comes the 4,350 – 5,350 tons full load Type 42 Sheffield class DDG.

County class used GWS-1 Sea Slug , the RN’s first and only AAD guided SAM until the advent of GWS-30 Sea Dart in the 1970s. (not counting the short range Sea Cat of the 1960s, which was replaced by the short range Sea Wolf)

Bainbridge, Long Beach and Enterprise:

There is nothing odd about that designation at all in the post war environment. Frigate/Destroyer designs grew massively in a very short space of time. The RN county class for instance were well beyond any DDG built to date for that service yet were still built to destroyer standards. In the case of the USN, and elsewhere, the later ships used used enlarged frigate style hulls (see the picture linked on the first page for the difference in hull form) and i am told to a lower structural standard in order to save money. I believe it was the right approach and one that the USN is correctly still pursuing today, it gives them numbers of well balanced ships over a small fleet of highly expensive vessels.

I would argue that the only oddity was the decision to re-designate the nuclear powered ships as cruisers (Ticos too) and a look at the timeline tells us that this only seems to happen when planned cruiser designs become un-viable on cost grounds.

1. What planned cruiser designs? What really doomed the Virginia class ships was economics. They were coming due for their first nuclear refuellings, mid-life overhauls, and NTU refittings, all expensive projects, together costing about half the price of a new ship. Further, they required relatively large crews, straining USN personnel resources. The 1996 Navy Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC) study determined the annual operating cost of a Virginia-class cruiser at $40 million, compared to $28 million for a Ticonderoga class cruiser, or $20 million for an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Given a lower requirement for cruisers, it was decided to retire these nuclear ships as a money-saving measure. The early non-VLS Ticonderoga-class cruisers had equally short careers, serving between 18 and 21 years. Nothing to do with cost of further nuclear cruiser designs.

2. This [growth in frigate/destroyer size] just goes to show form follows function, subject to (e.g. budget) contraints. Which, incidentally, negates the concept of single ‘true’ cruiser hull. As evident from Long Beach’s design history:
“A problem, however, was the limited horsepower of the nuclear plants; the ship would have problems meeting a 30-knot design requirement. As the ship design evolved, the deficiency in power became more evident and the ship length grew to provide a better speed-length ratio for reduced wave-making resistance to facilitate a 30-knot speed. The increased length allowed additional weapons systems to be accommodated including a RAT (rocket-assisted torpedo, replaced in the final design by ASROC) and the Regulus surface-to-surface cruise missile. After Regulus was canceled, a Polaris missile armament located in eight silos amidships was proposed as alternate but was never installed. “
http://www.aandc.org/research/cruisers/cr_navsea.html#LinkTarget_8794

3. If there is such a thing as a true cruiser form, then all cruisers prior to Long Beach will have to follow this pattern as well, lest they are not cruisers…. let’s look up some old hulls to compare to Long Beach as well as Virginia CGNs. Just compare e.g. the 1920s Omaha class, the 1935 Brooklyn class and the 1945 Salem class: all vastly different hulls, all cruisers.

4. I seriously doubt Virginia’s (or even some of the 8000 ton former DLGs) are some sort of enlarged frigate hull (as if there is such a standard hull). Remember, the frigate (originally a sailing ship) was reintroduced during WWII. They were escorts much the same size as pre-ww2 destroyers (2000-2500 tons) but built more specifically for endurance (i.e. fewer boilers, greater bunkerage but lesser speed than destroyers) and ASW/AAW (i.e. fewer and smaller caliber main guns, no torpedoes). The frigate (US: destroyer escort) was essentially a development from the corvette, whose hull was in turn derived from a whaleboat (see Flower class).

5. It is not that US destoyer classes were growing in size (see earlier DDG tonnages). Rather, there was a large jump with the advent of the Spruance (first new destoyer class since Charles F. Adams class, 6000 ton). While no destoyers were built, US started building Brooks/Garcia class and Knox class frigates (3500-4000 ton).

A hull design is more than just displacement, it is hull form that counts.

I’m willing to accept that. Still, it would be ‘nice’ if someone could then explain in lay-mans terms what the distinguishing form features of a cruiser hull are exactly (or point to an explanation there of). Of course, this also raises the question of what other postwar cruisers aren’t ‘really’ cruisers (e.g. ships in French, UK, Russian and Italian navies). Cruisers historically are not a type of ship but a role for a warship role: cruisers were ships which were assigned a role largely independent from the fleet, irrespective of their size. Perhaps it should be acknowledged also that the US used rather unique ( if not “odd”) ship type naming conventions in the early post WW2 period (like: guided‑missile frigate Bainbridge DLG(N)-25 < when’s the last time you saw an 8000+ ton nuclear powered frigate?)

I have spoken to my source and the article itself says that talks are being held for additional order , it cant be any more clear unless you want to believe your version of the story

Austin, I’m willing to take your word for it. However, we do disagree in our reading of that article. Surely you agree that “I’ve spoken to my source” is not the best of ‘evidence’: it would take 2 seconds for me to write up something similar (which would of course be totally made up, but that’s besides the point ;-). IIRC, from the start, the initial contract for 3 Talwars included an option for a further 3. This option has been taken up. We’ve seen official announcements of that, from sources in both Russia and India. Since there is no such dual-sided confirmation of yet another order of 3 ships by official sources (i.e. non-press), nor any mention of another option, I remain sceptical.