Re: BCGN
- From: dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven)
- Date: 31 Jul 2007 17:27:55 GMT
"Mike Piacente" (mpiacente@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
Battlecruisers in the US Navy during WW II (the 'Alaska' and 'Guam') were
designated CBs.
My assumption is that a 'nuclear-powered guided-missile-armed battlecruiser'
would be designated CBGN. A ship, to have 'guided missile' in the
designator, must carry SAMs with a minimum maximum (i.e., a range of at
least) of a certain number of nautical miles.
There will never be such a ship. Period. For the US Navy, it requires
classes of many ships, to provide the about 12 carrier groups and about
12 amphib groups with escorts. Having, say, four-eight really big missile
ships *completely fails* to address that *need*.
And, that need will require that whatever ships the USN builds for itself,
they will be affordable in numbers of more than a dozen per. 30,000 ton
missile cruisers are not.
By the way, the 'battlecruisers' in the former Soviet Navy (the 'Kirov'
Class during the Soviet Navy, renamed 'Petr Veliky' ['Peter the Great']
Class after the USSR fell] were/are designated 'CGNs' by the USN. There
were four in the class, if I remember correctly, but not sure any of them
are still operational.
Pretty much only the last one. Part time.
And, as far as the former Kirovs go, they are not as powerful and flexible
as USN Ticos and Burkes. Yet another point that ship size doesn't mandate
ship power.
Andre
.
- Prev by Date: Re: DESO to dissapear?
- Next by Date: Re: Marines keep combat rules to themselves
- Previous by thread: Re: BCGN
- Next by thread: Marines keep combat rules to themselves
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
