Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (Kikai heno hanashite) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: CGN/DLGN Classification Message-ID: <1991May16.052709.17494@amd.com> Date: 15 May 91 16:23:41 GMT References: <1991May15.060811.2974@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 86 Approved: military@amd.com From: gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (Kikai heno hanashite) wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) writes: >According to my sources this reclassification took place in June 1975. >Also the following classes where also changed: [Also notes the chart was backwards. --CDR] There's one problem with that chart.. it's backwards. The CVAN and CVA became CVN and CV (respectively), not the other way around, as your chart suggests. Further, you forgot the CVS, which became CV as well (the whole idea was that all of our carriers should be multi-mission..not just a group of "attack" carriers, and a group of "ASW" carriers.. they should all be able to do all of the jobs.. budget stuff). >D(G)= Destroyer escort (guided) >(CLGN/DLGN) = Destroyer Long Range Guided Nuclear almost.. Destroyer LEADER (guided missile, nulcear propulsion) for the most part, they are/were larger than the typical destoyer. >An example how this change affected the various classes. USS Belknap, >were orginally "Frigate" but are now "Crusiers". There are many other >examples these were first one at hand. Originally, we used a different meaning for frigate. I don't have my information with me, and it has been a while, so bare with me.. Most countries use the word frigate for small escorts, while we used it for "non-ship-of-the-line" ships (this dates back to the revolutionary war). The problem is that in modern naval warfare, that pretty much applies to any ship that isn't in a battle group, while in the old days, it applied mostly to smaller ships. So, we rearranged things so that they were more nearly size and capability related. The smaller escorts became frigates. These ships are mostly only effective in 1 warfare area, with limited ability in the others (actually, the FFG kinda violates this.. it was designed for AAW, but with a towed sonar array, and 2 LAMPS III helo's, it's a very effective ASW platform). The medium sized, generally capable ships became Destroyers (the DD type ship has been the main workhorse of the Navy for quite a while). These are very effective at 1 area, and can perform at the others. They are also the general surface ASW platform (the Spruance was designed around that). Then the cruisers are supposed to be able to perform at all 3 warfare areas. I don't know if that always applies, however. Some of the cruisers from the Vietnam era weren't built with any surface guns (and hence couldn't defend themselves from the little boats that the viet cong used to try to send at them). Where do the CLGN/DLGN ships fit in? I think they were meant to be "more than a destroyer", but since they weren't 'gun ships', no one really considered them "cruisers" (keeping in mind that the navy didn't really get serious about surface to surface missiles until the 70's..about the time of the name change). Once people realised that they were big enough, and capable enough, they said calling them a light cruiser, or a destroyer leader, really didn't apply, so they changed them to Cruisers. >So up until 1975, the US Navy had nuclear destroyers. in name only. The ships were of cruiser size (keep in mind that the modern destoyers are about as large as a WWII cruiser). [ List of 5 DLGNs omitted. --CDR] >Now there are no nuclear destroyers in the US Navy. But there are more >than Spruance class destroyers in existance. The reason they never built a true "nuclear destoyer" was that the size and weight (and cost) of the reactor limits the reactors to large ships. The exception being with Submarines, which have an enormous bennefit from nulcear reactors. >Now I have question. I know why the CVAN/CVAs where reclassified, but >the DLGN, what the motivation? (Hope I don't stir up the >Destroyer/Frigate/Crusier debate.) Hope I answered that above. John -- Discussing whether or not machines can think | John E. Rudd jr. is about as interesting as discussing whether | gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu or not submarines can swim. --Dijkstra | (ex- kzin@ucscb.ucsc.edu) | Speaker to Machines #include Send all comments, flames, and complaints to /dev/null.