wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) (05/15/91)
From: wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) Huey <ae627x07@ducvax.auburn.edu> mentions he wasn't too sure about the time when DLGNs were reclassified According to my sources this reclassification took place in June 1975. Also the following classes where also changed: Old Class New Class -------------------------------- CVN CVAN CV CVA CGN (CLGN/DLGN) CG (DLG) FFG (DEG) FF (DE) D(G)= Destroyer escort (guided) (CLGN/DLGN) = Destroyer Long Range Guided Nuclear 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. So up until 1975, the US Navy had nuclear destroyers. The US had five DLGNs. CGN 36(Ex-DLGN) California CGN 37(Ex-DLGN) South Carolina CGN 35(Ex-DLGN) Truxtun CGN 25(Ex-DLGN) Bainbridge CGN 9 (Ex-DLGN) Long Beach Now there are no nuclear destroyers in the US Navy. But there are more than Spruance class destroyers in existance. 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 this info helps you Alex Klaus <wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca>
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (05/15/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >According to my sources this reclassification took place in June 1975. >Also the following classes where also changed: >Old Class New Class >-------------------------------- >CVN CVAN >CV CVA >CGN (CLGN/DLGN) >CG (DLG) >FFG (DEG) >FF (DE) Looks like you got your classes mixed up. These classifications under Old Class are actually New Class, and vice versa. >D(G)= Destroyer escort (guided) >(CLGN/DLGN) = Destroyer Long Range Guided Nuclear >An example how this change affected the various classes. USS Belknap, >were orginally "Frigate" but are now "Crusiers". Correction: USS Belknap used to be classified as DLG 26 (Light Guided Missile Destroyer) in the FY 1961 program; she was reclassified as CG 26 (Guided Missile Cruiser) on 30 June 1975. >So up until 1975, the US Navy had nuclear destroyers. >The US had five DLGNs. > CGN 36(Ex-DLGN) California > CGN 37(Ex-DLGN) South Carolina > CGN 35(Ex-DLGN) Truxtun > CGN 25(Ex-DLGN) Bainbridge Correct. All reclassified on 30 June 1975. > CGN 9 (Ex-DLGN) Long Beach Correction: Long Beach (CLGN 160) (Light Guided Missile Cruiser) was ordered on 15 October 1956; reclassified as guided missile cruiser (CGN 160) early in 1957 and renumbered (CGN 9) on 1 July 1957. >Now I have question. I know why the CVAN/CVAs where reclassified, but >the DLGN, what the motivation? Two Nimitz class carriers (USS Nimitz and USS Eisenhower) were ordered as attack aircraft carriers (CVAN); they were reclassified as CVN on 30 June 1975. They were refitted with A/S control center and facilities for A/S aircraft and helicopters for their new multi-mission role (attack/ASW). Subsequent Nimitz class carriers are fitted similarly. As for the reclassification of DLGN as CGN, my best bet is that the new classification best describes the ship's functions. Sources: Jane's Fighting Ships 1974-75, 85-86, 90-91.
gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (Kikai heno hanashite) (05/15/91)
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<std.disclaim> Send all comments, flames, and complaints to /dev/null.
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (05/16/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) > >>(CLGN/DLGN) = Destroyer Long Range Guided Nuclear > >Correction: USS Belknap used to be classified as DLG 26 (Light Guided >Missile Destroyer) in the FY 1961 program; she was reclassified as CG >26 (Guided Missile Cruiser) on 30 June 1975. Correction: USS BELKNAP was a guided missile frigate (DLG), not a long range guided destroyer, as I saw in the original posting and carried over to my posting. My apologies. Some more interesting information on USS BELKNAP: she was severely damaged in a collision with the carrier USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67) on 22 November 1975 near Sicily. Repair and modernization began 9 January 1978. Included Flag accommodation in ront of the bridge and the hanger converted for additional accommodation. Estimated cost $213 million and includes new improved 5 in gun, updated missile armament, sonar communications and radar suites as well as improvements in habitability. Recommissioned 10 May 1980. Source: Jane's Fighting Ships 1974-74 & 85-86 Steve Williams
sconway@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sean P Conway) (05/16/91)
From: sconway@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sean P Conway) >From: gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (Kikai heno hanashite) >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). If I remember correctly, the 'A' in CVA stands for 'heavy' not 'attack'. This follows the same logic that a CA stands for 'heavy cruiser'. The rationale behind this was to distinguish between the larger and smaller carriers. I have never heard of CVAN, but I have heard of nuclear carriers being refered to as CVA's. Maybe since all modern heavy carriers are nuclear, they viewed it as being redundant to include the 'N'. Sean Conway
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (05/18/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >If I remember correctly, the 'A' in CVA stands for 'heavy' not 'attack'. >This follows the same logic that a CA stands for 'heavy cruiser'. The >rationale behind this was to distinguish between the larger and smaller >carriers. I have never heard of CVAN, but I have heard of nuclear >carriers being refered to as CVA's. Maybe since all modern heavy carriers >are nuclear, they viewed it as being redundant to include the 'N'. Actually, "CA" stands for "Armored Crusier", not "Heavy Cruiser." CVA stood for "attack aircraft carrier" and reflected the Navy's modifications made to Essex/Hancock class carriers during the 50's and 60's. Some were converted into dedicated ASW carriers, hence they became CVS's. Those that maintained their oringinal mission were designated CVA's. "CV" stands for "multi-mission aircraft carrier" and a "CVN" is the same, but nuclear powered. Originally, the Enterprise and the units of the Nimitz class were not going to be equipped with ASW aircraft, hence their original designation as CVAN's. Once the S-3 was developed in the early 70's, this thinking was changed and the nuc carriers became CVN's. Also, there are fewer nuclear powered heavy carriers than conventional ones (Conventional: Midway, Forrestal, Independence, Saratoga, Ranger, Constellation, Kitty Hawk, America, John. F. Kennedy. Nuclear: Enterprise, Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln. There are two CVN's under construction and one planned. They are the George Washington, John C. Stennis, and United States respectively. -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 2/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or 1069 Morewood Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 The opinions in this post/mail are only those of the author, nobody else.
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (05/20/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >If I remember correctly, the 'A' in CVA stands for 'heavy' not 'attack'. >This follows the same logic that a CA stands for 'heavy cruiser'. The >rationale behind this was to distinguish between the larger and smaller >carriers. This is when the Navy ship classification becomes confusing. CVA does stand for attack aircraft carrier. CA does stand for heavy cruiser. Don't ask me why... >I have never heard of CVAN, but I have heard of nuclear carriers being >refered to as CVA's. [From] 1972 onward attack aircraft carriers (CVA) were reclassified as aircraft carriers (CV) upon being fitted with anti-submarine control centers and facilities to support A/S aircraft and helicopters (in addition to fighter/attack aircraft). The multi-purpose configuration was dictated by the hasing out of dedicated anti-submarine aircraft carriers (CVS), the last being decommissioned in 1974. All active ships still classified as attack aircraft carriers (CVA/CVAN) on 30 June 1975 were changed to CV/CVN regardless of their ability to support anti-submarine aircraft. Source: Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-91 Steve Williams
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (05/20/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
>Actually, "CA" stands for "Armored Crusier", not "Heavy Cruiser."
CA defined as "armoured cruiser" - I can't find anything to support
your statement. This term might have been used unofficially, who knows?
CA used to be "heavy cruiser"; now it is called "gun cruiser."
(now, isn't it getting more confusing?)
There are two CAs in the U.S. Navy:
USS DES MOINES (CA-134)
USS SALEM (CA-139)
These cruisers are largest and most powerful 8 in gun cruisers ever
built. Completed too late for the Second World War, they were employed
primarily as flagships for the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and
the Second Fleet in the Atlantic. SALEM was decommissioned on 30 January
1959 and DES MOINES on 14 July 1961. Both laid up at Philadelphia.
At one stage their reactivation in lieu of MISSOURI (BB 63) and WISCONSIN
(BB 64) was under active consideration by Congress without any support
from the Defense department. It was eventually dropped when proved
to be "non-cost-effective."
1985-86 and 1990-91 editions of Jane's Fighting Ships define CA as gun
cruiser; 1974-75 edition of Jane's Fighting Ship defines CA as heavy
cruiser.
Source: Jane's Fighting Ship 1974-75, 1985-86 & 1990-91
Steve Williamsab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (05/21/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >This is when the Navy ship classification becomes confusing. CVA does >stand for attack aircraft carrier. CA does stand for heavy cruiser. >Don't ask me why... My understanding of Navy abbreviations goes like this. When numerical designations were first given to ships (in the late 19th century, I think) cruisers (like the USS Olympia, now a museum at Philadelphia) were given the designation "C". When new design cruisers were given armor protection, they were called "armored cruisers", hence the designation "CA." When the last of the original C's was retired, they were replaced by ships that carried a "CL" designation, or "light cruiser." This is probably when "armored cruisers" became "heavy cruisers" but the "A" still stands for armored, not heavy. There were also "CB"'s or "battlecruisers". -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 2/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or 1069 Morewood Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 The opinions in this post/mail are only those of the author, nobody else.
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (05/21/91)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes: >>Actually, "CA" stands for "Armored Crusier", not "Heavy Cruiser." > >CA defined as "armoured cruiser" - I can't find anything to support >your statement. This term might have been used unofficially, who knows? You have to get into some old stuff for this. Originally, the Navy had armored cruisers, protected cruisers, scout cruisers, and peace cruisers (I refer of course to the New Navy put together in the 1890s). Early this century, they switched designations to armored and light cruisers. The original 8"-gunned cruisers were designated as light cruisers, since they were indeed a logical outgrowth of the WWI and following light cruisers; with the armored cruisers gone and the 1930 London naval treaty distinction between heavy (8" gun) and light (6" gun) cruisers, the heavy cruisers were reclassified as CAs. DHT